Truth v. The Machine » Archives » So Now It’s Romney vs. Palin, Pawlenty, Jindal, Daniels, Barbour, et al.

November 30th, 2009 by Evil Conservative

There might be a few others in the mix, but Mitt Romney’s now the frontrunner for 2012 with Mike Huckabee out of the way. And for that reason it looks like there is indeed the possibility of two very young governors – Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin – to try and mobilize now instead of waiting 4 – 20 years. What would have been the Huckster’s two biggest voting blocs in the Republican primaries against Romney are now up for grabs.

Palin will have a great opportunity to shore up support and contributions from the evangelical base of the party while Pawlenty will attempt to be an even-handed, “independent” option for middle-class Republicans.

And if Huckabee tries to throw his hat in the ring, it’s going to get kicked right back out of it with a commercial that goes like this:

Huckabee is not only soft on crime, he allowed sentence reductions and pardons to be granted for hundreds of violent criminals already behind bars.

One was Maurice Clemmons, who was imprisoned for 5 felony convictions.

Despite a 48-year prison sentence, Clemmons was set free on parole after just 11 years. While free, Clemmons murdered 4 police officers execution-style.

Leniency for violent felons. Huckabee on crime.

Checkmate.

Posted: November 30, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Under: Jesus, save me from your followers!, Palin, Pawlenty, ass clowns, church and state, elections | 5 Comments »

Trackback | del.icio.us | Top Of Page

5 Responses to “So Now It’s Romney vs. Palin, Pawlenty, Jindal, Daniels, Barbour, et al.”

Lloyd Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 6:30 am
Great point. Huck is gone so last years lousy crop of squishes is down to one: Romney.

I don’t know about Pawlenty, Palin or Jindal. There are a lot of things I like about them (esp. our hometown boy T-Paw) but there are a lot of questions too. None of them seem whole to me but they at least have parts. Romney has none.

I like Mitt Romney, dont get me wrong, and I want him on our side because he’s a great spokesman but he’s governed loke a Rockefeller republican. T-Paw, Palin and Jindal are all Reagan republicans and that’s good but what I want to see is a Ben Franklin republican. Someone with wit and vigour and the ability to make bad news and hard truths acceptable through a logic grasped by all. Reagan had that but Reagan only offers part of the blueprint. Breitbart, maybe? Who knows. But imagine what this country could do with a little leadership and a whole lot of freedom. With the tools we have? We’d be back in no time.
MyMorningLackey Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 9:05 am
Seriously, what was Huckabee thinking? I bet 2012 for the repubs will turn out like 2008 for the dems. Everyone assumed clinton would be the nominee for years, probably including the illinois senator who said to himself, let me run and hopefully become vp and then in 8 years I’ll get the big prize. Most people think Romney will be the nominee, but there’s a lot of time until the primaries. I bet the people you mention will run, thinking in the back of their minds, I’ll be an handsome vp choice with the support I’ll garner. Then, who knows, we can have sec of state romney.
Evil Conservative Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 9:39 am
Lloyd,

I actually thought last year we had a great crop of candidates – blew away 1996 and 2000. Considering it was a Democrat year, we definitely couldn’t be disappointed with how many answered the call.

Pawlenty is the best of the 3 young guns by far. Your comment on none of them being whole was a problem in 2008 for Republicans. Everyone on the Right wanted a Frankenstein candidate that blended Mitt Romney’s looks and speaking ability with Giuliani and McCain’s independent appeal with Huckabee’s biography to then mix in the policy positions of either Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, or John McCain depending which of the three legs appealed most to each base voter.

And a person with wit and vigor was there in 2008. We just couldn’t see him because we weren’t receptive to them after being so frustrated with Bush’s 2nd term and losing Congress 2 years earlier. If we weren’t receptive, then Independents wouldn’t be either.

MyMorningLackey,

It is definitely not in the bag for Romney and this doesn’t open the door for Palin as much as everyone is going to say in the next few weeks.
I could definitely see Daniels, Barbour, and Cantor thinking along the lines of Obama in 2007; shhot for the moon, land among the stars.
It’s possible Kasich pulls a Fred Thompson by entering into the mix in late 2011 if he wins in Ohio next year.
MyMorningLackey Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 10:17 am
Still, Romney v Obama debates would be fun to watch, considering that Romney probably has a debate room in his mansion where he practices in the mirror before praying to Jupiter or whatever Mormons do. Mitt is pretty articulate, he’s actually clintonesque, bill that is. He just needs a little bit more “I feel your pain.” I contend that if Bill in his prime debated bumbling obama he would receive 40, maybe 50% of the black vote in this twilight zone universe. Romney just needs to do 3 things and he’ll be unstoppable in debates.
1. Address flip flopping like obama did experience. Come right out and say how opinions change. He’s human and that it’s actually a benefit in good leadership such as obama promoted the fact he wasn’t a washington insider.
2. Address how he’s not really a mormon. That bit he had about pulling over his car and crying when he heard that blacks and other non whites could become mormons was priceless. People said it was impossible to elect a black president so it’s now unfounded to say they’ll never elect a mormon. All people care about is money. If you have kermit the frog up there people will vote for him if they think he’ll lower gas prices, lower taxes and give them milk and cookies before bedtime.
3. Add some soul. Romney is a robot. He needs to run a charity organization, maybe even something religious but non mormon and get out with the people. He should be eating mcdonalds and hearing stories from the recession victims. More importantly he would be creating stories for himself to tell America on the trail. Just think about Romney with his pauses and stature talking about the charity work he led over the last few years. A populist message that he will bring America back to the ass kicking, economic powerhouse it was. Sound familiar? Remember that Reagan came in 2nd place in 1976. Oh, and some sunglasses and a saxophone would be good too.
Lloyd Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Philosphically I was really dissapointed with all of our candidates last year with the exception of Thompson. Sure, our candidates were to the right of the democratic candidates but that isn’t saying a whole lot. I’m often asked by my liberal friends how much better I think we’d be if Mccain had won and it’s a fair question. If all things were equal but Mccain was president we’d still have TARP and stimulus and we’d still be facing health care, cap and trade and God knows what else. Faced with an arguable mandate to work with a democratic congress which of our candidates would have held the line against Reid and Pelosi on principle? Maybe Giuliani, but Romney has shown that he wouldn’t (if the health care system in Mass is any indication), Huck, no, and John Maverick Mccain bragged about all his compromises. Maybe we had wit and vigor but let’s add uncompromising moral clarity to my list of wants – and no, I’m not talking about trivialities like marriage and abortion. I mean on clarity regarding the role of government and the difference between rights and entitlements. The candidate that won was full of it but he was still the only one that ran against the power of washington, monopolies and special interests. Our candidates allowed that ground to be lost and for that alone they deserve to be dismissed from any further consideration. Our next batch are going to have an easier time next go round but we’re going to be right back here in a few years if they dont have the guts to stamp out any last remaining embers of collectivism in washington. The young guns have the guts, but which has the overarching political philosophy to roll all this back and then some?