Mitt Romney

You Too Can Lead the GOP Presidential Primary for 15 Minutes

|

Here's a great visual representation of exactly how much fun the GOP primary campaign has been so far, via Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. This is the shape of the primary so far in Iowa:

This is the sound of settling.

Fear the boom and bust, indeed.

The national polling is similarly contorted, and it suggests that the Republican party is in a bit of a pickle: They think they can win against Obama in 2012. But they don't have a candidate they think they can win with.

Try talking to Republicans about Mitt Romney, and you'll find two things: First, a lot of them don't want to talk, and when they decline they frequently stress the need for maintaining a good working relationship should Romney become the nominee. Those who do talk tend to say a few cautiously nice things about him. He's a decent guy. He's a good manager. He's intelligent. He knows business. But it's hard to find party insiders or activists who are genuinely enthusiastic about his candidacy. The people who like him best—self-styled moderates and business folks who shy away from the rougher edges of the party's activist base—are merely comfortable with him, because they see, or think they see, a familiar type of individual.

So it's clear that core support for Mitt Romney is limited. Which explains the hunt for an alternative. Ronald Brownstein has explained this hunt for a Not-Mitt by arguing that there are essentially two primaries going on; the Tea Party primary, and the primary for everyone else.

The TPM poll graph provides a striking illustration of the fluidity of the Tea Party primary. Michelle Bachmann. Rick Perry. Herman Cain. They've all ridden the hype-wave. And they all crashed fairly quickly. Now it looks like Newt Gingrich is going for the same ride. But Gingrich makes both an odd anti-Romney and a dubious Tea Party candidate. I've already written a column-length take on Gingrich, so I'll just say that this recently released Ron Paul attack ad does an effective job of laying out why he's such an awkward fit:

It's easy enough to understand why the GOP base would look for an alternative to someone they view as a technocratic centrist flip-flopper. It's harder to understand why they would settle on someone who could be described the same way. 

NEXT: Believers Rate Atheists About As Trustworthy As Rapists, Says New Study

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Compared to, say, individual stock trends, it looks like the only sustainable upward trend is Ron Paul’s.

    Of course, presidential politics is the complete antithesis of “long-term hold”.

    1. Good observation. The media like to remind everyone that they think Ron Paul’s potential is limited (although the limit keeps rising, from 1% in 2007 to 5% in 2008 to 10% earlier this year to around 20% now in the early primary states where people have heard about him), but they almost never say the same thing about Romney — he will be as hard pressed as his hair to get over 30 percent in the primaries.

      1. Paul is probably helped, overall (not sure about libertarians as separate from Paul) that Gary Johnson isn’t running. There are some libertarian leaners who would vote for Johnson but run screaming from Paul, but it really isn’t a lot of people.

        Actually, I’ve heard a number of people who say that Paul is limited also talk about Romney being limited– they talk a lot (like this post) about the large number of Republicans who are anti-Romney but can’t decide on a candidate.

        1. …Gary Johnson isn’t running.

          Ouch. Guess it’s time to scrape the “Johnson 2012” bumper sticker off the truck.

          1. Isn’t in the running, I meant to say. He isn’t attracting support, which includes when running open houses in New Hampshire.

            For a variety of reasons, Paul is picking up nearly all the votes of people who might otherwise support Gary Johnson.

          1. I took his comment as snark on the press totally shutting Johnson out.

            1. The press is shutting out all other libertarians, as it makes the portrayal of Paul as a lone nutjob so much easier.

              It’s all about the script.

    2. it looks like the only sustainable upward trend is Ron Paul’s

      Unfortunately that’s just Iowa. In the linked article, there is another graph for the national contest, and Paul is positively placid.

      1. Probably due to media coverage/campaign focus. Think about how much Huckabee spiked after his Iowa showing.

        1. Here’s hoping.

      2. Paul isn’t even mentioned in the linked article…

        1. The graph. There are three graphs in the linked TPM article, and the only one shown above is the Iowa race.

        2. Or is that just a general lamentation?

          1. This.

  2. Pure sine-wave extrapolation says it’s Bachmann’s turn again.

    Wouldn’t that be amusing?

    1. Santorum would seem to be the last conservative remaining who hasn’t had a surge of support. If Newt falters again, look for the media to start pumping up Santorum.

      1. The local conservative radio show in Pittsburgh has started that Santorum pump recently. It’s so exhausting that I don’t even feel like going back to the last sentence to fix my unfortunate wording.

        1. Will you do that that Santorum pump that you do so well?

      2. What does Santorum have to do with Conservativisism other than the fact he claims to be a conservative?

        1. He hates Mexicans?

  3. What’s the second black line?

    That ad is ok, but far too long..

    1. Probably Huntsman. Not sure why the reused a color though.

      1. I missed that the purple wasn’t labeled either.

        1. Purple is Santorum. Black is Huntsman.

          1. Gary Johnson’s the white line.

        2. Purple is a fruit

          1. No, no, no. It’s the actual data from the IPCC.

  4. You Too Can Lead the GOP Presidential Primary for 15 Minutes

    Unless your name is Gary Johnson.

    1. He needs a good scandal
      http://rctlfy.wordpress.com/20…..nd-anon-4-?-yall-need-a-good-ad-campaign/

  5. Surprise surprise, presidential primaries turn out to be media hype circuses to grab eyeballs with minimal content.

    1. and fund-raise from the info challenged who actually believe nonsense like gun confiscation, FEMA camps, & death panels.

      1. Re: Double Asshole,

        and fund-raise from the info challenged who actually believe nonsense like gun confiscation, FEMA camps, & death panels.

        Because believing that the government will turn on you is believing in nonsense… Right, double-asshole?

        https://reason.com/archives/200…..-the-bayou

        https://reason.com/archives/201…..-the-death

        1. so how many patriotic $$$ did old mex contribute ? bwahahahahahahahaha

          1. derp de derpity derp

        2. btw old mox stop spoffing me in the othre threads i will see that u get band if u dont

          1. Re: Double Asshole,

            It is just that you’re too spoofable, you snookums you!

            By the way – fuck you.

            1. sorry I don like mexxicansz I prefer blak guyz

      2. and a unicorn in every pot.

  6. now I have to come here for josh marshall shit thanks pete you have just cured my reason bookmark you asshole

    1. stop writing like this it’s really annoying

      You’ve got an audience here. Perform, motherfucker!

  7. Looks like it may be a Ginrich-Romney-Paul race in the end, much like in 2008 when it was Obama-Clinton-Edwards. From the Tea Party perspective, all are fatally flawed. The only Republican sub-group that can claim to be entirely pleased with any of the candidates is establishment types, and Romney is their guy. However, if it comes down to these three candidates, as I think it will, watch for the SoCons to completely abandon Romney and go for Gingrich vs. Paul.

    1. From the Tea Party perspective, all are fatally flawed.

      Interesting that you think the father of the Tea Party movement is fatally flawed.

      1. Interesting that you think Paul is the father of the Tea Party movement. An undeniable, enervating influence? Yes. Father? Nah. In any case, most TP’ers I know love his economic suggestions, but go blank on his social libertarianism and get absolutely apoplectic over his foreign policy.

        1. The Tea Party began when a bunch of Paul supporters held a protest in which they re-enacted the Boston Tea Party.

          After that, the movement was gradually co-opted until it became just a placeholder for “really, really conservative” but the simple history of the thing makes it indisputable that Paul is the “father” of it, if anyone is.

          1. Yes and even before dumping those barrels into the gulf we had a tea party money bomb. They can’t fucking stand to here it though.

            1. Well, I concede the reenacted Tea Party part. However, those were Paul supporters. I do not recall Paul directing that action, nor do I recall his laying claim to the movement in any way. In any case, I do not deny that Paul was a major influence on its beginning – but it very rapidly evolved into something completely separated from the kind of libertarianism that he and his followers espouse.

              1. And therein lies the shame.

    2. “Looks like it may be a Ginrich-Romney-Paul race in the end,”

      Gingrich Titties is going to crash hard in the coming couple of weeks, like Cain, Perry, all the other dumbshits. Santorum (aka anal cumstain) might be hyped up and then crash the same way well before primary time. I doubt the media will try to touch Romney’s bitchass in order to keep him where he is. Paul is going to have to put up with a ton of bullshit up against him.

  8. I keep seeing this term “technocratic”. Am I right in thinking it means “soulless”?

    1. It means that bipartisan center that stretches from Tom Friedman on one side to David Brooks on the other.

      So, yes, soulless.

      1. Definition of TECHNOCRACY
        : government by technicians; specifically : management of society by technical experts

        Technocracy is soulless, but that’s because it’s unprincipled government by top men. TOP. MEN. Romney stands for nothing, but he’s running on his “competence,” much like Obama (laughably) did.

      2. It’s sad that technocracy’s meanong has changed over the years. Looking at pamphlets from the Great depression era, it used to be communism with steampunk and robots. They wanted to use raw energy as money. It’s a terrible idea but at least it sounds cool. Now it’s just used to describe boring authoritarians like Friedman. Oh well.

        1. Communism would definitely be a lot cooler if it came with steampunk and robots.

    2. mandarins. if that isn’t racist…

    3. If that’s the case, then Hitler, Stalin, and Kim Jong-Il are technocrats.

  9. I should’ve run. I’m a largely unknown lawyer who once lived in Chicago, after all.

    1. Hmm, but are you, shall we say, clean and articulate?

      1. I’m clean and articulate.

        1. Er, what I’m saying is, is your grandmother a typical white person?

          1. Both of them were! I’m twice as good!

            1. totally lmao

    2. Its not too late.

      1. Okay, I’m in!

        1. Interesting. Could you please let me know, say, 100 things you would like to do as president? Not that you’d have a list like that handy…

          1. [Takes slow pitch]. Why, yes, yes I have!

            1. You want to do 100 things? That’s way too many things. You’ve lost my vote.

              1. No, wait, you’re counting wrong. Most of those things are “undoings.”

                1. Are you kidding? Your list of things would bloat the government even more! Just from your first ten, I see you want to add a new cabinet position, give away millions of additional dollars to congress critters, add new rules of attire, add hundreds of ninja monkeys (and Samuel L. Jackson) to the federal payroll, and hand out tens of millions of hand grenades. Budget-buster!

                  1. Those all have to be self-funding. There’s a whole plan. Not to mention the savings from the many cuts on the list.

      2. For me it’s too early.

    3. I’m a largely unknown lawyer who once lived in Chicago, after all.

      Yes, but you’re not disingenuous or incompetent.

      1. Yes, but the beauty is that no one knows that. I’m not campaigning. I’ll let my commenting record speak for me.

        1. I’ll let my … record speak for me.

          That doesn’t seem like the right strategy.

          1. Everyone loves libertarian snark, SEC football, space, and the Censor!

            1. As President, who would you have killed first?

              1. SEC football? Fuck that shit. Romney it is.

                1. I don’t want any stinking statist, Big Ten votes.

              2. Well, it depends on whether I run on a libertarian or totalitarian platform. In the former case, probably no one; in the latter case, well, my election committee would draw up a list.

            2. Everyone loves libertarian snark, SEC football, space, and the Censor!

              You want them to be able to project their favorite conference onto you.

              1. That’s good advice. I’ll just say I like the best football conference and let them project their beliefs onto the blank screen that is the Libertate campaign.

                1. I’ll just say I like the best football conference and let them project their beliefs onto the blank screen that is the Libertate campaign.

                  Now you’re getting it.

                  1. Revel in his emptiness. Fill the void that is his being.

                    Right on nothing. Wrong on nothing.

                    Libertate, 2012.

        2. How are you at reading a teleprompter, and sounding smart?

          1. I can fake it.

            1. YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYESSSSSS he can!

    4. I should’ve run. I’m a largely unknown lawyer who once lived in Chicago, after all.

      All you need now is a history of non-voting in the Senate and you’re all set.

  10. State polls are notorious for not being as reliable as the bigger national polls, but everything I’m reading now indicates that Gingrich is starting to clobber the field in most of the early voting states.

    From day one I thought that it was inevitable that Romney was going to win, but for the first time I now believe that he is in serious trouble. I think he needs to come out of hiding fast in order to save his candidacy.

    1. Gingrich/Obama would be gold for 3rd parties. Too bad Newt’s ride won’t last. I’m not convinced he wants to be president anyway, definitely not anymore than he wants to sell books and hear the sound of his own voice.

      1. Who the fuck would buy that book? Who the fuck buys all these books by crappy politicians that only stay relevant for five months or less?

        1. Campaign workers and remainder stores.

  11. Cain’s finito santiago and Newt’s ride will end soon enough. Then what? Perry resurgence, or does Perry lose enough supporters to Paul that it’s a Paul vs Romney race?

    1. This is a possibility. It will all boil down to a combination of at least two of these three: Romney, Paul, Gingrich.

    2. Paul doesn’t stand a chance in a 2-person split. His biggest chance is to come in first in a 3- or 4-person split. Let the others split the Establishment vote among themselves.

    3. Hey, someone using finito santiago besides me!

  12. Congratulations Republicans! In 2008 you panicked after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and ran to the safety of the old, gray-haired career politician, John McCain. Just a few months earlier he was way down in the polls and carrying his own luggage through the airport.

    Now, with the apparent fear of who can best debate Obama, you’re running like a bunch of sheep to the old, gray-haired career politician, Newt Gingrich. Just a few months ago he was way down in the polls because he had little support from his party.

    Today Newt has almost no ground game in place, which will make the actual battle against the Obama team even harder. You can’t debate your way into the White House. You have to be out there on the playing field!

    History is repeating itself! Wake up Republicans! WAKE UP!

  13. Let’s vote for a LINO. (Libertarian in name only.)

    Libertarians are all Nanny-Statists too, telling me it’s just to dangerous out there to gambol about plain and forest.

    1. Go knock yourself out, WI. Gambol to your heart’s content.

    2. Re: White Imbecile,

      Libertarians are all Nanny-Statists too, telling me it’s just to dangerous out there to gambol about plain and forest.

      No, we tell you that you would cry like a little wussy girl at the sight of ants taking away the few roots you worked so hard to gather if in your “original affluent society” because you are a wuss, a fool and a hypocrite, anybody’s supposed statism notwithstanding.

    3. Yawn.

  14. I think this just shows how much T-Paw miscalculated by dropping out. He would have been king of the Not-Romneys.

      1. Squirrels. That was for WI.

    1. Absolutely. And Daniels would have been much more palatable than Gingrich.

      I absolutely believe Paul will win Iowa. I haven’t heard of any effort comparable to the Super Voter Bomb.

    2. Pawlenty had no money left; that’s why he dropped out. He miscalculation was in putting all his eggs in the Iowa basket, instead of downplaying like Romney et al did, and letting himself make up ground in the debates over the long haul.

  15. This is great news for Obama, the youngish females are gone, the black dude is gone, we now know he’s gonna run against some old white guy again. Good position to be in. Now if only Paul can be persuaded to run a third party campaign and split the anti-Obama vote victory will be assured.

    1. From your lips to God’s ears.

      Another Obama term would be preferable to a Gingrich presidency.

      1. You know, I think you’re right. Scary.

      2. I’m with you until I think of SCOTUS placements.

        1. I don’t get your concern. Gingrich is no less a statist than Obama.

  16. I was thinking about Gingrich today, and I realized something.

    I was a kid when he started appearing on C-SPAN in the middle of the night talking smack about Democrats to an empty House floor. Since then, I’ve gone through some definite stages of feeling towards him:

    1. Surprise
    2. Enthusiasm
    3. Euphoria
    4. Disappointment
    5. Disillusionment
    6. Outrage
    7. Disgust

    And laying it out for myself like that, I suddenly realize why I hate him so much:

    The son of a bitch treated me like one of his fucking wives.

    1. You heard that shit on Chris Matthews yesterday.

      Not to say it isn’t true, but still…citations.

      1. He ripped off Chris Matthews?

        Say it ain’t so, Fluff!

    2. Why were you watching CSPAN in the middle of the night, as a kid, or any time?

  17. I’ve already written a column-length take on Gingrich, so I’ll just say that this recently released Ron Paul attack ad does an effective job of laying out why he’s such an awkward fit[…]

    It is so effective, in fact, that the neo-cons went ape-shit about it. I already mentioned it somewhere else, but I was listening to the Joe Pags broadcast this morning and the guy was LIVID becaose of the fact someone dared touch his beloved candidate with the petal of the truth.

    The ad is, by the way, very powerful. Nicely done.

  18. Anyone think a Ron Paul presidency would land Napolitano on the SCOTUS? That would make my friggin’ decade.

    1. Man, The Judge on the USSC would be so awesome. But he would have to be confirmed by the Senate, which would never happen.

    2. Re: Bones,

      Anyone think a Ron Paul presidency would land Napolitano on the SCOTUS?

      Oh! Me! Me! Me!

    3. The Judge was supposedly on the short list of VP options, but the SCOTUS would be a better fit, and better for liberty in the long run.

  19. It’s not difficlt to understand. Gingrish is known for the Contract with America and for taking a confrontational approach to Democrats. Romney is not. Thus Gingrich can plausibly appear to be enough of a radical anti-government type to appeal to Tea Party type, while also being the practical experienced insider that the moderates can deal with.

  20. GOP prospects under the following Presidents:

    Obama: Prospering!

    Romney: Very good.

    Gingrich: Meh.

    Paul: Gott in Himmel, wo ist mein Luger?

  21. I swear to FSM, only the Republicans could fuck up a presidential run against a sitting president with a record like Obama’s in an economy whose GDP is held in “positive” growth by borrowing. Way to go guys, you’re gonna manage not to win a medal at the Special Olympics of politics.

    1. Shit, Dole in 1996, McCain in 2008… nominating obvious losers is actually not uncommon for GOP.

      1. And the other side has given us Kerry, Mondale, and Dukakis. Why do the two major parties hate America so much?

        1. The Ds and Rs can be quite tone deaf. My own favorite local example was in the Ohio gubernatorial race in 1986, in which there was only one man the Rs could have nominated who could possibly lose to the incumbent Dem. Dick Celeste. That man was former governor Jim Rhodes (of Kent State fame and who, by that time, was the official Ohio State Fossil). The Rs could have nominated some bum off the street and beaten Celeste. But the Rs, of course, nominated Rhodes.
          These are not evil geniuses we’re dealing with.

          1. Obama got his big break after then incumbent (Paul?) Ryan’s wife leaked his pervertedness in her divorce filing. To keep the seat they trucked in insane Alan Keyes… Gah.

            1. It was Peter Fitzgerald’s seat. Fitzgerald decided not to run for re-election because the GOP wouldn’t support him (because he called them out on their corruption in IL).

              Jack Ryan was then designated as his successor, and he was the one whose “sealed” divorce was unsealed after he had already become the GOP nominee.

      2. McCain in 2008… nominating obvious losers is actually not uncommon for GOP.

        As much as McCain sucks, he still would have won if the economy hadn’t gone into full nuclear meltdown that October. But once it did, no republican would have had a chance to beat Obama.

    2. Brett L|12.1.11 @ 2:20PM|#

      I swear to FSM, only the Republicans Democrats could fuck up a presidential run against a sitting president with a record like ObamaGWB’s

      The stupid is strong in both camps, but you may be right. I watched the last debate and found that, while I could identify with some of the candidate’s positions on some isolated issues, none managed to get through the debate without some statement that made me cringe at the thought of them in charge of anything.

      1. It is important to note that I am part of that political middle independent voter block that is open to being convinced and tends to swing elections. We are getting tired of the turd sandwich vs giant douche choices for sure.

        1. I’m 22 and I’ve heard “we’re getting tired of two bad choices” so many times I know to be cynical about it.

        2. Shut up. You know damn well that the only one you ever planned on voting for from the start is Obama.

          1. Colonel_Angus|12.1.11 @ 4:13PM|#

            Shut up. You know damn well that the only one you ever planned on voting for from the start is Obama.

            If that’s for me…Obama wasn’t on my top five list last time around, but McCain was on my NEVER list.

            I have never been a supporter of Obama. I don’t hate him, but I never had expectations he would be very effective. I could easily be convinced to support someone else.

            But, as I said, the GOP doesn’t seem to have found anyone that moves this from turd sandwich vs big douche.

            1. Currently Gingrich is head of my NEVER list.

        3. Personally, I’ve taken to voting against the incumbent. Eventually, I may stop voting, but I haven’t given up yet. I’ll take the bum who isn’t burrowed in like a tick before the one who is.

          1. Hell, that’s the way I’ve always voted – throw the bums out, and they’re all bums. I guess my father taught me well.

      2. Re: Neu Mejican,

        none managed to get through the debate without some statement that made me cringe at the thought of them in charge of anything.

        Which in Paul’s case would be… what?

        1. He didn’t perform well in his allotted 5 seconds.

        2. In this last debate, the topics were the ones I agree with Paul the most, but even then, he is too immoderate. Each problem has the same solution for him…disengage, isolate, ignore.

          For many issues that is the right answer. But not for all.

          1. What are your thoughts on Gary Johnson?

            1. He was a pretty ineffective Gov. imho.

              He didn’t get many of his initiatives passed (Richardson was more effective at lowering taxes, for instance – despite spending issues)

              The things he did manage to do he didn’t seem to have the skills to implement (c.f., private prisons in NM. He was absent in the extreme. Once they were privatized, he forgot who the customer was and didn’t use due diligence to make sure the state’s citizens got what they were paying for. It took some rioting and 4 deaths to get his attention. He still downplays that, but it was a predictable outcome in NM).

              So, meh. Unimpressed. I would go mountain climbing with him. He’s a nice guy. He’s okay on the WoD. But I don’t think he’s got what it takes to be president.

              1. Interesting perspective. Thanks.

          2. Re: Neu Mejican,

            Each problem has the same solution for him…disengage, isolate, ignore.

            Instead of “Search, find, destroy.” With MY money.

            Yeah, the guy’s a kook.

            1. Instead of “Search, find, destroy.” With MY money.

              Not a policy I tend to support.

              Yeah, the guy’s a kook.

              Actually, he kinda is.

    3. I don’t get it either. Who votes for these people?

  22. And the other side has given us Kerry, Mondale, and Dukakis. Why do the two major parties hate America so much?

    Simple: Looking at the Venn Diagram of where the TWO TEAMS’ philosophies overlap, the one area they both occupy is expanding the size and scope of government, more specifically, creative ways to force handing over your money to them, since both parties agree it is government’s money (and time, profession, and all-around life and limb) in the first place.

    By nominating flaccid freaks as a foil to the not-quite-as-evil (evil being a subjective term) is simply waving one hand whilst the other is fingerbanging you and telling you that it’s the other guy doing it. In short, a grand distraction.

    1. It was actually more of rhetorical question. They are too lacking in moral fiber to hate anything other than a decrease in their own influence.

      1. Which brings me back to my view that a GOP insider would infinitely prefer four more years of Obama to four minutes of Ron Paul.

  23. From what I read, the Generic Republican has a better chance of beating Obama than anyone else.

    I think I’ll file to run as “Mr. Generic Republican!”

  24. Gotta kinda wonder who comes up with all this stuff.

    http://www.invisi-browse.tk

  25. “Unless he remarries before January (odds: 1 in 5), converts to Mormonism (1 in 4) or says something fatally crazy (even money), Newt Gingrich will finish in the top three and continue his delusional campaign into New Hampshire. He will take the irrational-but-not-clinically insane portion of the tea party vote (completely insane wing is already committed to Ron Paul) as well as voters, who for incomprehensible reasons believe he is a visionary.” from http://www.seculargop.com/

    1. I don’t understand how you think the Tea Party will vote for Gingrich, he’s as big government as Obama. Also, I’m skeptical your idea that the party will coalesce behind Romney. The Republicans may like order, but there will be zero passion behind him. I can’t see people holding up “Vote for Romney” signs, he’s basically John Kerry of the GOP. Obama won because he got the independent vote, I just can’t see him appealing to the far right or independents.

      1. Some people (read: idiots) think the Tea Party is the religious wing of the GOP.

  26. The real question to me is this…

    While it is a general truism that anyone competent enough to be president is probably too smart to want the job…in the current situation, isn’t there some multiplier effect that says anyone who wants to be president now clearly has no clue about anything?

    1. Re: Neu Mejican,

      While it is a general truism that anyone competent enough to be president is probably too smart to want the job…

      RACIST!!!

    2. Once we’ve acknowledged that, can we just go ahead and put a rabbit in the Presidency? They’re fairly attractive, their hair is always impeccable, and the destruction they cause is minor and easily mitigated.

    3. There’s an excellent point here: Are some of the people who aren’t running not running because they don’t want to be president while the economic mess is occurring? So people like Christie, Ryan, and some others who are surprisingly passing on this election are maybe doing it for pragmatic reasons?

      Of course, if you want to be president to help your country solve its problems, that sort of dodge seems a little reprehensible to me.

      1. Or maybe they’re smart enough not to fall into the trap that the President really can’t do much unless Congress sends him a bill. Well, I guess someone firmly committed to one term for the good of the country could raze the EPA, HUD, and the Treasury of all the do-gooder pro-regulationists.

  27. Ron Paul is going to have to hammer at the one major issue which alleged supporters disagree on: crony capitalism disguised as faux “patriotism” – the war of terror.

    1. Not until the general. In the primary, he needs to just hammer Gingrich and Romney on being centrist technocrats, and ignore everyone else.

  28. You can’t go by any of these silly polls in any case. In the 2004 Democratic race Howard Dean had double-digit leads on Kerry, Edwards, etc. Then came the New Hampshire primary and the ‘scream heard ’round the world.’

  29. Thank you for this article. I enjoyed it very much 😉

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.