Let’s not blame Bush for Romney
[Posted by Karl]
George W. Bush has enough to answer for without hanging Mitt Romney around his neck. Yet that’s a major theme of Erick Erickson’s rambling and occasionally incoherent post-Iowa rant:
The reason this Republican primary season is so chaotic is because George W. Bush failed to have a successor. Had President Bush had a Vice President to run for President, Bush would have undoubtedly made different policy decisions, but even aside from that there would have been an ascertainable front runner coming from the Bush administration to win or lose.
Because there was not such a thing and because the GOP likes orderly processes, we had to go back to 2000 and dredge up John McCain.
The Republican field was unable to reboot because we had no logical successor coming out of the White House to either win or lose. We went back to McCain and have had to work our way back through unresolved issues from 2000. And now, when the field should be rebooted, we’re having to deal with Mitt Romney who should have been displaced by an heir in 2008 and instead, because the 2008 season did not reboot the crop of candidates, is now the guy three quarters of the GOP does not want who is about to be the nominee.
Our process is chaotic because Bush left us no heir to win or to be rejected through a cathartic process of locking in gains or moving on from Bush. Yes, this one is Bush’s fault.
Erickson identifies with the tea party, but is he or the tea party really upset that big-spending, “compassionate” King George II did not provide a the line of sucession? Of course not, which is why Erickson ends up complaining “Bush left us no heir to win or to be rejected.” However, had Bush offered up a RINO Veep as common foe to true conservatives, wouldn’t that Veep have had even greater institutional advantages and been even more difficult to defeat than John McCain or Mitt Romney?
Blaming Bush ends up being part of a larger pattern as he bemoans Rick Perry’s loss in Iowa:
Had Santorum run a successful retail campaign and caught fire on his own accord, he’d have been vetted by now and probably also succumbed to the Romney machine. His campaign was not successful, it’s just all the others sucked so bad.
***
If Rick Perry drops out of the race it will be the ultimate failure of the tea party movement to see the race come down to two or three big government conservatives. Romney and Santorum both hide behind compassionate conservatism to expand the state to suit their purposes. Only Rick Perry has run a campaign to make Washington “as inconsequential to our lives as possible.”
If I were Perry, I’d wake up tomorrow, say I refuse to surrender the Republican Party into the hands of big government conservatives after all the gains the tea party has made, and then announce I’m firing all my political staffers and communications staffers and ask South Carolina to help me reboot to victory. Make it an Alamo stand and, if like at the Alamo Perry goes down, perhaps there’ll at least be a rallying cry for small government conservatism left over.
That’s just me.
Well, it’s likely not just Erickson; it looks like Perry is staying in. But anger and denial are not a substitute for judgment. Erickson paints Santorum as lucky, but luck is often the residue of hard work. Erickson writes about campaigns that “sucked,” but avoids discussing the central role of the candidate in his or her campaign. In general, I would prefer not to dump on Perry or Erickson for supporting him. My bias toward a NotRomney and my appreciation of how well Perry’s record of success contrasts with Obama’s failures is documented. But Perry in fact rebooted his staff once already, so maybe the problem is elesewhere.
If Erickson knows which Perry staffer told Perry to insult conservatives who disagreed with him on Gardasil vaccinations and the Texas Dream Act, he ought to provide a name. (Indeed, Erickson recently tweeted about all the email he gets from people whose big objection to Huntsman is his insulting the base, so he ought to get this.) Also, the names of the staffers who told Perry to botch questions from the media and voters — as large as which Departments he’d eliminate to as small as his favorite books — those names would be good to have also. The names of those who forced Perry to get in late and the names of those who stopped him from demanding to be better prepared? Yeah, I want those also. Pretty much anyone responsible for Perry looking like a caricature of George W. Bush when Obama is going to campaign on blaming Bush should be on the list.
I think everyone, with the possible exception of Erickson, knows whose name should be at the top of that list. If Rick Perry is the executive and man I have been led to believe he is, he would be the first to take personal responsibility for his failings as a candidate. Then again, Perry’s decision to soldier on to South Carolina, further dividing the NotRomney vote, may suggest I am again overestimating Perry. Or it could be Perry was persuaded that Romney really should be the nominee, on the theory that it’s better to win or lose with a known moderate like Romney than for conservatives to get sucked into another W-esque experience with big-government conservatives like Gingrich or Santorum. However, if that’s the case, the true conservatives may need to turn down the rancor toward Romney.
–Karl
Good luck on that, Karl.
I suspect this level of divisiveness will lead to many “true” conservatives sitting out the election or voting Third Party, and assuring Obama a second term.
That’ll show ’em!
But no worries: we will hear over and over again that Romney is indistinguishable from Obama, would make the same Supreme Court nominations, and so forth. That is (sorry) insane, but you will hear it, and you will hear it in this thread.
I hope I am wrong, both about this thread and the upcoming election. But I doubt it.
To be clear: I will enthusiastically support whoever gets the nomination. ABO.
Simon Jester (410735) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:23 amErickson suffer from delusions of granduer. And Perry swaggered when he should have walked, grew tongue-tied when he needed to be as eloquent as a guy like him could be.
All hat, no cattle with that dimestore cowboy.
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:24 amExcellent post, Simon!
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:25 amI’ll take Romney.
MayBee (081489) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:28 amI’ll be thrilled with Romney.
Romney knows how to run stuff.
Yes, the hissy-fits, recriminations, half-truths, malevolent falsehoods, posturing, and feigned disillusionment will continue.
And it’s on to New Hampshire, SC and beyond!
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:31 amKarl – I want to see the case made that Romney is a big government moderate or conservative based on something like facts rather than the geographic accident of him governing the blue state in which he lived, speculation over what he might or might not do as president, and hatching a state plan to move the level of having health insurance in his state from 92% to 98% before the liberals could impose their own solution.
Trash talk is great, but substance would be better.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:33 amSo Masscare and RGGI don’t count against him, yes he was working with the worthless party that Weld
narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:36 amand Cellucci bequeathed him, but that’s not really
an excuse.
Karl – Is Perry on the ballot in South Carolina?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:40 amJust as with McCain, this conservative would accept Romney, but not like it; realizing that the alternative is so much worse.
AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:45 amOf course, being in CA where a GOP Presidential candidate has about as much chance of taking the state’s 55 Electoral Votes as a snowball’s chance in Hell, I have the luxury of throwing a meaningless vote to whomever, without an effect on the overall picture.
People who stay home sitting on the hands have an easy time seeming to be contempative by stroking their chins, since both their hands and heads are in the same area.
“Then again, Perry’s decision to soldier on to South Carolina, further dividing the NotRomney vote, may suggest I am again overestimating Perry.”
I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s January 4. Iowa shouldn’t be able to just jump on new years day and cross a bunch of credible candidates off the list.
Why not have at least one early conservative state have a primary too?
It’s not like Perry is staying late like Huckabee did.
Yes, the cost for this is a further dividing of the Not-Romney vote and I think that’s unfortunate, but if Perry only gets a few percent in a few early contests, it might be worth it. It’s very hard to settle on the rest of them.
He ran MA leaving it 47th out of 50th on growth and leaving it with horrible debt. Yes, he found MA with problems, but he was not up to the task of turning it around. He didn’t really even try. He instead negotiated with the left on how much farther to the left to take MA than it already was, calling that conservatism, as if anything an inch to the right of whatever a democrat wants is the new mainstream.
Which would actually be true, if Mitt were president.
I don’t think Bain needed his leadership to succeed, since it did so well before and after him. He brought in investors and we can see he’s very good at raising funds from billionaires today. And that is a valuable and good skill, but it is far from sufficient leadership experience and the guy’s record is so weak ideologically. By all accounts, he did well with the Olympics, but that ranks him well below even Santorum on accomplishments. Good, but we’re talking leader of the free world.
Romney would be an improvement over Obama, but I just can’t support a liberal in a primary. The guy calls himself a progressive.
Ok, He’s better than Obama. His appointment record really isn’t much better, though. Why did he appoint so many liberal judges if the MA leg doesn’t have a say? Why did he start his political career in the most liberal state in the country and collaborate with Ted Kennedy on new entitlements and controls of our choices?
Is it really insane to look at Romney’s record and realize he’s a shameless politician, and all the stuff he’s said since 2007 can be ignored. Completely ignored. That’s not his record. He’s made promises to MA that he admits breaking the “Very first” chance he got.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:45 amand something tells me
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:46 ammaybe MayBee baby is
on to something good
narciso – You have to explain yourself. Apart from increase participation in Medicaid, which affects state expenditures, Romneycare was private market, unlike some of the other alternatives being served up.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:46 amOops,,,”contemplative”
AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:47 amand yes, a lot of Erick’s points don’t work out well.
But it’s a damn frustrating time to be a conservative and I guess he, like me, is having a problem with patience.
He was wrong to say retail politics didn’t make this for Santorum. Luck, sure, but I think it shows that the old ways are critical.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:49 amIt’s too bad some refuse to try to make the case for (and maybe resuscitate) the failed candidacy of their hero and instead choose to continue the half-truths, malevolent falsehoods, and outright hissy-fits against a candidate they seem to despise.
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:50 am“He didn’t really even try.”
Nice substantive comment. Concise and fact-filled.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:51 amI think Bush failed to nurture talent generally… Condi Rice was the only superstar what emerged from his lackluster administration, and I’m pretty sure someone as enamored of Obama as she is won’t be throwing her hat in any Team R electoral ring anytime soon.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:51 amhe’s got nuthin’…
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:52 amI think Romney emerged from Iowa as the not-Santorum, which is a huge jump in stature for him, in my wee pikachu eyes.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:52 amI do realize I’m basically flip flopping on Perry dropping out. I thought he should some time ago.
But it’s very harsh realizing the choices for president are Romneycare, Newt, and Santorum. Makes you want to invent a time machine.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:53 amnasty snarly Newt is much less appealing than the old Newt
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:54 amWelll it’s W with NCLB, he honestly wanted to set up
narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:55 ama more effective educational model, but Kennedy sabotaged it, and then complained about it’s failures
Makes you want to invent a time machine.
Or get some professional help.
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:57 am“Why did he appoint so many liberal judges if the MA leg doesn’t have a say?”
Dustin – Because Judges were approved by another panel composed largely of Democrats. Seriously, how many times does this have to be explained?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:58 amWhat president really has nurtured talent?
Gore did well in his election bid, but Clinton hated him. Clinton did not campaign for him or even speak well of him. You could say Clinton nurtured Hillary, I suppose.
MayBee (081489) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:02 amReagan didn’t really need to nurture Bush 41. He was an accomplished man before and after Reagan.
Nixon?
Carter?
Kennedy? I guess he nurtured his brother.
Who is Obama nurturing?
MayBee (081489) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:02 amMaybe Obama nurtured Huntsman.
MayBee (081489) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:03 amnasty snarly Newt is much less appealing than the old Newt
Ha. My kids said they guess the whole Teddy Bear Newt thing didn’t work out.
MayBee (081489) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:04 amFolks who worked with Ted were unwise. Everything the man touches is a disaster. Just look at Romneycare. It was a predictable disaster from day one, given special federal funding only because it was going to be the dem’s prototype for their national program which they totally realize is also completely unsustainable (opening the door to worse). Thanks a lot, Romney.
Anyway, at least W stood up for something when it was right but unpopular. I don’t agree with him on everything, but I respect him for being a leader. Much as I respected Joe Miller for insisting Alaska get off the federal dole and respected Rick Perry for insisting Iowa get off the subsidies (another pander bonus for Romney, of course).
Why not let a red state have a say before we insist conservatives drop out? Is that really so bad? Just a little more time preaching for real limited government.
Yeah, I realize it’s probably futile, but on principle, we shouldn’t allow Iowa to absolutely dominate our political party.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:05 amouch.
And damn, if Hunstman could go back in time, I bet he wouldn’t have let that happen. Dope.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:06 am“He didn’t really even try.”
I see better talking points out of Think Progress.
Those 800+ (I’ve seen 1,000) legislative vetoes exercised by Romney which could be overidden by the 85% Democrat legislature showed he just rolled over and played dead is what I think.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:10 amIf Romney cast that many vetoes, and had that many overrides, what does that say about his persuasive powers?
AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:12 amI can’t criticize Mitt for his judicial choices in MA since MA (like others) has probably what is the worst possible method of picking judges, where the Bar essentially annoits its favored princes for positions upon the bench, and the Governor only gets to select one from the short-list that the BAR presents to him.
AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:15 amFat chance of ever getting a member of the Federalist Society a judgeship using that system.
Right the Missouri Plan, that needs to go, stat.
narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:18 amGood point, AD. But the Governor’s Counsel is… the Governor’s.
So yes, I have to honestly concede the Romney had to get make his selection via a strange filter, but I don’t think that’s enough to get him off the hook.
And really, when in these situations, leaders have to deal. They have to be up for the job. Like Chris Christie taking his case to the people and putting pressure on folks to do the right thing.
That instinct is critical. Where is Romney to stand up and say ‘this liberal outcome is unacceptable, and I will fight’, particularly when it’s politically difficult?
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:21 amWell I sympathize on that score, even in Alaska, the choice was between a environmental whacko and
narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:26 ama one time member of Planned Parenthood, she chose
the latter choice, it didn’t matter they all chose
to ignore the election law, a year a half later,
“…I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of Government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! What a triumph for our enemies to verify their predictions! What a triumph for the advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious!
Sue (40062f) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:30 amTo the Secretary For Foreign Affairs, August 1, 1786
Writings Vol. 28 p. 503”
(Source: Maxims of Washington, Collected and Arranged by John Frederick Schroeder, Palladium Press, 2002, pg. 7)
But we can blame Bush for Hyperinflation right leftys?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:31 amYeah, another low point for the GOP (at least much of this was GOP).
It’s not that they are an establishment organization conspiring and picking and masterminding everything. Just that some people seem to keep leaning on making the mess impossible to reform and impossible for outsiders to survive in.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:31 amSpeaking of which, yet another round of the two minute hate;
http://www.adn.com/2012/01/04/2245579/state-gets-more-time-to-release.html
narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:33 amIf Romney cast that many vetoes, and had that many overrides, what does that say about his persuasive powers?
Comment by AD-RtR/OS!
Persuading Democrats in Massachusetts, yay!
Better still, what does that number of vetoes say about the honesty of one Dustin and like-minded cohorts?
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:35 amI looked up the nurturing once – going through all the candidates like the Lamar Alexander and the Elizabeth Dole what ran after serving in a cabinet positions…
Maybe nurturing is a bad word, but the W Bush Admin doesn’t seem to have been much of a stepping stone for anyone.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:37 amDustin – Because Judges were approved by another panel composed largely of Democrats. Seriously, how many times does this have to be explained?
Comment by daleyrocks
If you don’t know that answer by now, daley, you will never, never never know him… ewwww-ewww-ewww-ewww.
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:38 amgood grief. They are talking about how it’s a “cover up” at your link in the comments. A cover up for what? At what point do people realize that Palin was, at least, quite ethical? I know of no more closely scrutinized politician.
Where are these people to note Romney’s records disclosures?
I think Palin would have been better off just destroying everything, too. Why not? The rules only affect those who follow them these days.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:42 amI guess Kissinger is in the talent category, then there’s Brent Scowcroft who turned out be the Saudi’s waiter, and Colin Powell, you see the problem here.
narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:42 am“Let’s not blame Bush for Romney”
No, let’s do but say we didn’t!
Let’s get serious and put the pressure on Obama. We do NOT need another 4 years of him, in fact, we may not survive another 4 years of him.
ABO is my candidate.
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:43 am“I guess Kissinger is in the talent category”
Funny… I’ve been reading the book “Widows”, which makes a pretty good case, so far, about Kissinger being a Soviet agent. James Jesus Angleton thought so.
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:45 amEricson I’ve learned to dismiss almost at the Brooks/Frum level, from the other side, good grief
narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:45 amas they say.
Bush nurtured Petraeus.
MayBee (081489) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:47 amTrento is one step removed from 9/11 denialists,
narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:47 amColonel, they thought the same of Angleton, the model for the ‘Good Shepherd’ but actually turned
out to be right, in the ‘Company’
You know I didn’t think of it, that way, but you’re right, who else to run the CIA then someone who cut his teeth in Afghanistan and Iraq
narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:52 amI think Liz Cheney would count too
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:58 amYes, she would, she’s a longterm player, maybe cabinet rank next time,
narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:17 am“Let’s not blame Bush for Romney”
Why not?
He gets blamed for everything else.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:19 amSo, Erickson thinks it is the job of the sitting president to choose his successor?
What does the president’s party do — sit on their hands and wait for the puff of smoke to waft out of the White House chimney?
Icy (44e33c) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:21 am“Romney knows how to run stuff.”
So did Stalin.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:22 am“Erickson identifies with the tea party”
Yes, and I, in my bones consider myself a moderate.
Bagdad Haiku thinks he’s a conservative.
Some of us are full of it.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:28 am“… is because George W. Bush failed to have a successor”
.
.
.
.
I did not know this was Feudal England or Modern Day North Korea. Who knew Bush was to perform “el dedazo” ala Mexican PRI 1970s Politics.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
ODB (dcf97e) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:40 amComment by Colonel Haiku — 1/4/2012 @ 10:35 am
But, both Bush and Perry were able to persuade Dems in TX; but, then again, that was TX where pols may be principled, but they’re generally not stupid.
AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:35 pmI figure this is as good as any a place to point out that all of the self-declared pure conservatives who claim that they withheld support for McCain because he wasn’t conservative enough helped elect the guy who runs roughshod over the Constitution, today’s episode being his recess appointments to the CFNB and NLRB despite the Senate not being in recess.
And for all of you who claim you’ll sit home if Romney is nominated because he isn’t conservative enough, (pardon my French) vas te faire enculi .
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
steve (369bc6) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:19 pmMaybee, I don’t want anyone good at running ORomnacare,or who might get his way with aRomneyVAT, and those adminstrative acheivements embroidered with aGOP label. Do Not Want. Perry is done. Only Gingrich is left. I’m thinking he might ultimately stand up for all that is at stake. After all, he never could resist a bandwagon and this one would require him to show off his knowledge of history and appeal to his pet love, the constitution. that’s overly optimistic I’m sure, but his weaknesses plus the zeitgeist might be good together.
Sarahww (459f14) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:34 pmLiz Cheney. . If only.
Sarahww (459f14) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:38 pmJeb Bush Liz Cheney
/because I still have my hat from 2004
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:40 pmGingrich is my choice now and I’m hoping the Perry Bachmann collapse combined with some newly opened eyes in camp Paul puts him back in the race.
But I must say Romney looks very presidenty when he stands next to Santorum.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:42 pmOn the recess appointment thing it is interesting that it is even necessary.
Harry Reid won’t allow a hearing, because the guy doesn’t come anywhere near the 60 votes that would be needed to move him through a final vote.
But Dingy will hand this precedent over to posterity, despite having used pro forma sessions dozens of times to prevent Bush appointments.
The only way this (extremely minor) nominee even gets seated is if the Senate bypasses tradition and the US Constitution, and Reid goes right along with it.
Can’t have the president failing to get his nominee now can they?
CausticConservative (b29599) — 1/4/2012 @ 2:16 pm“Some of us are full of it.”
Comment by gary gulrud
Well said, sir.
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:04 pm“If Romney cast that many vetoes, and had that many overrides, what does that say about his persuasive powers?”
AD – I didn’t claim he had 800 overrides. Keeping spending growth below the rate of inflation, cutting taxes, balancing the budget all four years and leaving with a $2 billion rainy day fund after entering facing a $1.3 billion deficit is not shabby in spite of what Distortomatic says. The efforts he undertook to reform the public pension system that Scott Walker is taking now in Wisconsin were largely overridden. For a progressive, he was ahead of his time in a deep blue state.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:12 pmTHE TOP 31 THINGS THAT YOU WILL NEVER HEAR A PERRY SUPPORTER SAY:
31. When I retire, I’m movin’ north.
30. Oh I just couldn’t, she’s only sixteen.
29. I’ll take Shakespeare for 1000, Alex.
28. Duct tape won’t fix that.
27. Come to think of it, I’ll have a Heineken.
26. We don’t keep firearms in this house.
25. You can’t feed that to the dog.
24. No kids in the back of the pickup, it’s just not safe.
23. Wrestling is fake.
22. We’re vegetarians.
21. Do you think my gut is too big?
20. I’ll have grapefruit and grapes instead of biscuits and gravy.
19. Honey, we don’t need another dog.
18. Who gives a damn who won the Civil War?
17. Give me the small bag of pork rinds.
16. Too many deer heads detract from the decor.
15. I just couldn’t find a thing at Wal-Mart today.
14. Trim the fat off that steak.
13. Cappuccino tastes better than espresso.
12. The tires on that truck are too big.
11. I’ve got it all on the C: DRIVE.
10. Unsweetened tea tastes better.
9. My fiance, Bobbie Jo, is registered at Tiffany’s.
8. I’ve got two cases of Zima for the Super Bowl.
7. Checkmate.
6. She’s too young to be wearing a bikini.
5. Hey, here’s an episode of “Hee Haw” that we haven’t seen.
4. I don’t have a favorite college team.
3. You Guys.
2. Those shorts ought to be a little longer, Betty Mae.
AND THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT YOU WILL NEVER HEAR A PERRY SUPPORTER SAY:
1. Nope, no more beer for me. I’m driving a whole bus load of us down to re-elect OBAMA!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:17 pmA fairly comprehensive list, daley.
Meanwhile, back at the White House, if Big Zero isn’t bypassing Congress and naming more radicals to the NLRB, he’s in talks and making preparations to release Mahmoud suq Madiq and friends from Gitmo.
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:26 pmI’m no fan of the Redstate folks (they banned me), and I’m no fan of Perry whose loss was self-inflicted, but the blogger with the redundant name is making a point I have been making for weeks.
Bush was president for 8 years. He, together with the rest of the Republican establishment, left almost no leaders who were willing and able to take up leadership. This was a failure, and there is no way around it.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 1/4/2012 @ 5:30 pmWe were speaking of TEd Kennedy earlier,
http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/is-obama-essentially-the-unions-president-or-is-obama-promoting-business-unionism/
narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 5:34 pmHaving a successor is not a magic bullet for preventing a Romney. All that Erick Erickson is saying here is that history had gone differently, someone else would be in a leading position. But that’s neither here nor there. He could have a bad successor too, you know.
George Bush the Elder had a successor, Dan Quayle, and I think that was a good part of the reason he lost the 1992 election (people could see that coming)
The original mistake was Ronald Reagan naming George H.W. Bush as his Vice President.
Eisenhower did have a successor – sort of by default – because he didn’t really pick him as a successor. That was Richard Nixon.
Now Theodore Roosevelt was prevailed upon to name a successor, and he did. In those days the Vice President wasn’t looked on as a someone who should be a successor. It was for a while more like the early days of the republic – a Cabinet member. He named Taft, the Secretary of War.
Later Theodore Roosevelt decided he had made a mistake and ran against him, but Taft had control of the Republican Party machinery and there were few primaries and he couldn’t get the nomination, although he was really more popular. Theodore Roosevelt ran as a Third Party candidate and came in second.
In 1928 Calvin Coolidge said “I do not choose to run” and gave no further explanation and named no successor. Herbert Hoover, the Secretary of Commerce, won the nomination.
George Bush the younger not naming a successor left a wide open field. That was good actually.
Again if there’s a problem here, it’s Ronald Reagan picking the wrong person as Vice President in 1980. Still it could have been worse. Ronald Regan wasn’t that good at personnel. At least it wasn’t Schweicker, you know.
Schweiker was a really strong liberal whom Ronald Reagan named as his Vice President before the 1976 Republican convention. Schweiker at that point insisted he was a conservative and then proceeded to prove it over the next 4 years. I mean he did. His Senate voting record changed. I His Senate term then expired (I am not sure if he even tried to run for re-election) and then now President Reagan (elected 1980) named him as his Secretary of health and Human Services (Jimmy Carter having extracted the E from HEW) in order to let people attend foreign conferences where they could hobnob with people in other countries’ Department of Education whose departments actually ran education. He served for 2 years and then faded away. A sad case.
Obama doesn’t really have successor either. Biden might try if he feels healthy enough although he’d be older in 2016 than McCain was in 2008. Hillary Clinton is not going to run. She doesn’t want to undergo the scrutiny and maybe is tired of all this.
Truman, come to think of it, left no successor either. Adlai Stevenson was drafted. The Illinois political machine at that time used to put up honorable people as Governor.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:11 pmComment by happyfeet — 1/4/2012 @ 1:42 pm
But I must say Romney looks very presidenty when he stands next to Santorum.
Why? Because Romney wears suits and Santorum a sweater vest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding
…and Harding in 1899 was elected to fill the Ohio State Senate seat for the 13th Senatorial District, despite Amos Kling’s financing of a primary opponent.[38] Shortly after this victory, there was a fortuitous meeting with Ohio Republican party leader and McKinley ally, Harry M. Daugherty, who commented about him, “Gee, what a great looking President he’d make.”; Daugherty later assumed the primary role in Harding’s political career.[39]
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:21 pmno because Romney looks like a catalog model and Santorum looks like a scary extremist
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:24 pmWarren Harding looks mean mean mean
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:24 pmComment by Dave Surls — 1/4/2012 @ 11:22 am
“Romney knows how to run stuff.”
So did Stalin.
I think you’re confusing Stalin with Mussolini.
Stalin knew how to stay in charge (scare everybody around him to death) but he didn’t really know how to run things.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:25 pmComment by happyfeet — 1/4/2012 @ 9:54 am
nasty snarly Newt is much less appealing than the old Newt
Mark Levin says the opposite. The old Newt, the fighter, is more appealing to him.
Of course what matters is if what he says makes sense and sounds right or wrong, sound or reckless.
Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:27 pmI think you’re confusing Stalin with Mussolini.
He got stoned and he missed it.
Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:28 pmMr. Erickson lets his passions get the better of his intellect, and blaming George W. Bush is an excellent example of that. He is not a silly or stupid man, but this is a silly, stupid argument.
Beldar (bd62f3) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:30 pmI don’t think Santorum is a scary extremist, but despite his ideological superiority, he really doesn’t have executive experience, and that matters a lot given the responsibilities involved. I have no faith in Romney as an agent of improving this country, but he probably picked up some management skills that Santorum doesn’t have. Just being honest. It’s very difficult to admit, but Romney is probably less of a risk than Santorum.
Newt seems to have both leadership capability and ideological promise (and no, he’s not really satisfactory either, but the best of the three).
Just hope Perry somehow has a miracle. He actually governed well, not that anyone seems to care.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:32 pmThe original mistake was Ronald Reagan naming George H.W. Bush as his Vice President.
Yes, he should have chosen Jack Kemp!
AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:32 pmIt’s a good blog when I read it (and I think I am probably pretty closely in tune with their opinions), but I never finished registering because the terms and conditions were echo chambery.
Free country and all, but I enjoy a more robust debate.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:34 pm81- more…
But, I think, all in all, we’d be happy to have the Executive Branch being guided by some of the people that Reagan ensconced within the Cabinet.
AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:37 pmYou won’t find a Holder, or Chu, or Salazar, in Reagan’s Cabinet.
we’ll see at the next debate Mr. Finkelman… I’ll be very curious
Mr. Dustin I think Newt is more matched to the moment than Romney.
But Santorum is more matched to a moment what passed in the mid to late 50s.
Perry? Bless his heart. He could greatly speed this sloggy sloggy process by bowing courteously to the inevitable I think.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:39 pmOn a completely different tangentthere’s this little nifty attack on Santorum.
If you read the rest of the link, you’ll find young John is supporting Ron Paul. But I think even Mr. Sludge the Medium could predict that the next family together in the Santorum clan might be a little strained.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
JBS (38f6c3) — 1/4/2012 @ 7:25 pmI just posted a comment and Akismet apparently ate it.
JBS (38f6c3) — 1/4/2012 @ 7:26 pmAnd it was a nice, completely tangential, comment, too.
A few points; first Romney didn’t turn Massachusetts around when he was governor? I live in the Commonwealth, pay taxes, and saw what he did firsthand. Apparently people can just throw this crap out because they don’t like him. He cut taxes, balanced the budget for the first time in many years, and actually created a surplus while fighting an almost unanimous Democrat legislature. Massachusetts then was what the USA is now.
Dave B (982f20) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:02 pmSecondly a big thank you to “Daleyrocks” for bringing up what was going on in Mass at that time and having the decency to consider it and not run away from that big conservative idea at the time straight from the Heritage Foundation about “personal responsibility” and mandates for health insurance.
Lastly Newt has shown his true colors as a narcissistic blowhard that puts himself ahead of his party (the reason they threw him out), and he just can’t understand how people could possibly pick a governor and successful bussinessman that has turned failing companies and the Olympics around in the greatest recession this country has seen. All his “talk” was just that. This comes from a career politician that has become a millionare because of his political career who didn’t expect negative attacks? His personal response and public tantrum says it all. He wants to destroy Romney even it it means he loses and the Republicans lose instead of picking himself up and doing what elevated him in the first place.
Dave B,
As a Massachusetts resident, I’m more than willing to say Romney did an alright job as Governor. The whole state is in a slow-motion death spiral thanks to Prop 2 and a half anyway, more and more of the taxes raised by the state are being syphoned off to pay cities and towns that cannot raise enough money through hobbled property tax rates.
We’ve been pretty lucky when it comes to the state’s economy, it’s very tech and bio-tech heavy, so we were able to ride the wave of the Dot Com boom. But the busts hurt us a lot, and a lot of MA residents have fled the state for greener pastures. (Or, more optimistically, high-tech workers that started in MA have moved onto better jobs in other states).
I’d like to think that the governor of this state has the ability to improve the state’s economy, but I know that’s not true. The best we can hope for is a governor that can stop the worst excesses of the Democratic controlled state house and Senate and gently root out corruption in a creaking, nepotistic state bureacracy.
Xmas (7afe29) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:34 pmAnd, Dave B, the norm is for members of the House and of the Senate to become Millionaires while serving, and if already at that plateau, to gild the lilly, so to speak.
AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:47 pmNow, do all of them become wealthy?
No, but the vast majority do.
It seems to be a part of the Beltway Culture – one that a Part-Time Legislature might change.
Perhaps if the “TEA Party” increases its numbers on The Hill for three or four more elections, some of the more detrimental tendencies endemic within The Ruling Class might be mitigated.
I don’t think Romney is the same as Obama. I’ll be happy to vote for him based on his record of low taxes, low spending, and abolishing bureaucracies. Oh, wait.
I refuse to vote for a candidate whose record opposes what I wish for America. There better be some reason to vote for Romeny other Romney isn’t Obama. If there isn’t, I’m staying home.
tehag (5c7fe4) — 1/5/2012 @ 4:24 amIf losers should drop out of races so that winners (who haven’t won yet) can enjoy their victories, why doesn’t Romney drop out so that Obama can run unopposed? Obama is proven winner at the preseidential level, while Romney failed to ge the nomination four years ago.
tehag (5c7fe4) — 1/5/2012 @ 4:27 amXmas and AD: You know what I’m talking about. Xmas you live in this state. You know what Patrick has done. Were you here for Dukakis? Surely you can come to Romney’s defense. Massachusetts may be a lost cause but Romney didn’t have anything to do with it, in fact he tried to save her. He wasn’t just another politician serving a term. He courageously tried to save us from economic ruin. Your comments don’t reflect that and appear cynical. Would you please clarify and tell others that Romney did his best under the circumstances? There’s people out there that thing Romney is a Goddamn liberal for Christ’s sake!
Dave B (982f20) — 1/5/2012 @ 4:38 amThat’s your right tehag. But if you do stay home, and Obama wins, well, I think you should probably not complain about the next four years. After all, you helped make them happen.
I hope you help keep us out away from Four Worse Years of Supreme Court appointments, extra-Constitutional actions, much higher taxes, and dangerous foreign policy.
Simon Jester (410735) — 1/5/2012 @ 6:26 amThe contrast is with Weld, Cellucci and Swift, we knew Patrick, was going to be horrible, someone should have told Hugh Hewitt, with his loyalty to his law school classmate.
narciso (87e966) — 1/5/2012 @ 6:48 amI fear that because Wall Street Romney inspires such little loyalty he will decide the pragmatic thing to do is to buy it.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/5/2012 @ 6:49 amYou see why we have reservations;
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/01/04/sen_hopeful_warren_lauds_naming_of_consumer_chief/
narciso (87e966) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:17 amSo I guess the really pragmatic thing to do is let Obama win? Gotcha. More things to complain about that way.
Don’t worry: if ANY Republican wins, you will find plenty to kvetch about. It’s your morning grits.
Simon Jester (410735) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:20 amI didn’t say we should let Obama win but we should try to nominate someone who’ll actually help our pathetic little country.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:22 amLooking forward to my one little spoil-vote. That’s all the say I’ll get it seems.
SarahW (b0e533) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:28 amtehag lost that thinking toque.
Icy (e6ad7f) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:50 amDave B,
You’re right that Romney did well during a rough time. His strength is his ability to make a dysfunctional government work well. He didn’t fix anything, as much as he coaxed the best out of a bad system. He’s got very strong bureaucratic jujitsu ability.
Romneycare short circuited a worse plan by the Democrats. He kept state taxes and laws that affect businesses stable, so businesses didn’t flee the state. He put a closing point on the Big Dig, having an independent engineering review after a fatal accident. It was small ball though, no real home runs.
Xmas (7afe29) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:43 amthey say that, but what makes it better?
Not the huge number of folks getting free health care. Not the government forcing people to pay large sums on a government program (just shaping it to where you pay direct instead of as a large tax hike). Not the huge surge in demand with no increase in supply.
It’s better on paper, and perhaps in effect it’s better but that’s not really clear to me. It’s certainly wrong.
Romneycare IS Romney’s record. Just because liberals always want more doesn’t mean anything less than what they want is conservative, after all.
I don’t think that’s true. I think he had a record in his latter three years of tax hikes, some of which were called names other than taxes. I think he presided over boom years (2003 to 2007) and his state didn’t grow jobs (47th out of 50, apples to apples) while other states did much better.
I think Romney was hostile to business in many cases as a governor. Especially with Romneycare again, which has caused many employers to shut down.
Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 9:53 amSpeaking facts about Romney will make the Romneyphiles shriek.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/10/2012 @ 7:08 pmNotice how when that palestinian killed that jewish family the LSM and the left didn’t say a thing about it?
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/10/2012 @ 7:44 pm