She would only appear on Fox. No uncomfortable questions would be asked.
Somehow McCain did it and Dole did it before him. Pat Buchanan got a lot of early heat in '96 as a red meat candidate, but the GOP then adjusted to a safe candidate in Dole (kind of Ironic that Dole looks like a lefty now…I always kind of liked dOle, actually). The GOP generally tends to get some red meat candidates getting heat early on (Pat Roberston once came in 2nd in Iowa), but then adjusting to something more sane and adult after New Hampshire. There are so many dipshits in the field this year that I think think they’ll splinter the dipshit vote and Romney will become the safety valve for non-crazy Republicans. Pawlenty is also a possibility, but I think he’s too bland and boring to get the nomination. He’s a definite VP possibility, but I think Romney might be forced to pick a wingnut to pacify the base. Obviously, complete nutters like Bachmann, Palin and Trump will be out of the question, but I could see him picking somebody like Gingrich, who would fall into the Cheney/Biden trend of an experienced veteran who can appeal to the base without being too much of a joke to the middle
Every one of the candidates will hammer Romney over health care. I have no idea how he is going to get out from under that shadow. He hasn’t shown any sign that he has a strategy deflect that bullet and I don’t know how he can spin it to his favor. Plus he seems to be blowing off IA and SC thereby making a big victory in NH absolutely essential for him to have any chance. I just don’t see him pulling out the nomination.
Romney is dead meat, specifically for the reasons the previous posted mentioned. Trump isn’t serious. Someone’s going to come out from left (okay, right) field. Think more of a Governor Christie or Governor Perry. Maybe Pawlenty will get some traction.
He’ll certainly say that it’s OK for a state to do it, just not for the federal government, and he’ll probably also claim that the federal version supports abortion but his didn’t. Still, though, it will be interesting to see how well that plays out.
He can try, but the main gist of the Republican outrage over health care is that it’s socialist and the mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional (or so they say.) Romney is a sitting duck here as far as I can see.
I think it’s going to be one the governors - Christie, Pawlenty, Perry, or Daniels. My money is on Mitch Daniels, if he announces a run. Christie would be an early leader if he ran, but I don’t think he will.
Mitch Daniels is smart, he’s fiscally conservative and socially moderate. He’s not flashy, but I think that might be an asset in a year when people are looking for serious people who can just get the job done.
Plus, governors are generally the minor leagues for Presidential candidates. It’s very rare for someone from the House, Senate, or outsiders from politics to win.
He was Bush IIs budget director. So he’s “fiscally conservative” in the sense of “likes funding tax cuts and new social programs by running large deficits and is really bad at estimating the likely cost of foreign military interventions”.
Agree the nomination will probably go to him or Pawlenty though. Romney is doomed for the reason Original Username gives, and the rest of the field is nuts or vanity candidates.
Perry just cockblocked Hutchson to get a third five-year term as TX governor. I kinda doubt he’d do that to go chasing the Presidency a year later.
The budget director can make recommendations, but ultimately Congress decides and the President signs. You can’t blame Bush’s deficits on Daniels without more data about what Daniels actually advised the president to do. Read David Stockman’s book about his years as budget director for Reagan to see how frustrating and impotent that job can be.
But the reason he has fiscal conservative bona fides is because of what he did in Indiana - he came into power facing a 600 million dollar deficit, and turned it into a $300 million surplus - in one year. He did it by cutting spending AND by raising taxes. He has maintained fiscal discipline in Indiana since 2004, and was re-elected in 2008 with 57% of the vote. Not bad for a cost-cutting Republican in a blue state.
He gets high marks from both libertarians like Nick Gillespie, and from centrist Republicans like David Brooks. George Will also speaks highly of him (read this: Mitch Daniel’s Case for a Less Strident Conservatism). He’s well-liked by the traditional conservatives at National Review. So he’s got broad appeal within the Republican party.
The guy was awarded the President’s Medal for being the top student in his state when he graduated from high school, and had his pick of Ivy League schools. He went to Princeton, and graduated with honors. He then went to Georgetown and got his J.D - also with honors. He’s a serious guy, and he’d be a formidable debate opponent for Obama.
He’s probably the best candidate the Republicans could put forward.
Little-known fact: Daniels is an Arab-American (his paternal grandparents immigrated from Syria).
He’s also smart, short, was busted with a lot of pot and some hallucinogens, and doesn’t want to fight about social issues. Odds of winning the GOP primary: 0%.
His “$50 billion” Iraq blunder won’t help either.
Daniels was one of the three people Bush explicitly credited with making the 2001 tax cut possible. There’s only so far he can run from that.
And by the sale of state assets. Can’t forget that.
Under a different nom de Web, here’s the importance I placed on Brooks’ analysis.
If the world’s most prominent climate change denier is for you, then who in the GOP can be against you? :rolleyes:
At any rate, these guys only help you win those Republicans who are influenced by inside-the-Beltway ‘wisdom’. That’s a diminishing set.
Seriously, like Pawlenty, he’s got a problem getting non-insiders in early states to pay attention to him. Every Presidential cycle, it seems there are a number of politicians who the Broderists are in love with as Presidential possibilities, but the voters remain relentlessly uninterested in. Both Pawlenty and Daniels have to win over some actual voters.
He’s also picked a fight with Rush Limbaugh. Call me back when a Republican wins such a fight.
I’m planning on volunteering for his campaign. I think he’s exactly what we need right now. Indiana is doing very well because of him.
Might want to wait until Daniel’s decides if he volunteering for his campaign. 
Meh, I don’t think the Arabic thing or drugs will hurt him. The GOP was alright with Bush’s not admitted but generally acknowledged drug use. And while the GOP has a gross anti-Muslim streak going, I don’t think it extends to Christian Arabs (it probably helps that his name is “Mitch” instead of “Abdullah” as well).
But I do think the Bush budget legacy will hurt him if he decides to run. The country is still pretty pissed at Bush, and the GOP has spent the last couple years trying to rebrand themselves as a different party then the one that ran the gov’t '01-'09
They have? Coulda fooled me.
No, no - the key word was ‘rebrand.’ Doesn’t mean they’re any different, just means they’re trying to divest themselves, in the minds of the public, of any connection with the GOP of the Bush years. They really have been trying to do that - and largely succeeding: the MSM basically told the Dems in 2009 that continuing to bring up the sins of the Bushies would be shrill, uncivil, ungentlemanly, etc., and the Dems let themselves be buffaloed on this, so there’s no pushback to this effort on the GOP’s part.
I’d settle for “doesn’t come crawling back to apologize”.
Not to mention the guy’s actually done something besides be in politics his entire adult life. (10 years in management with Eli Lilly) I wouldn’t compare him too much to Stockman though, as Stockman, after “getting taken to the woodshed”, did get himself fired for his convictions (which were very sound and pragmatic, IMHO. You may find his ideas on the current economic situation interesting. (42 minute youtube interview with him. Text of interviews with The Daily Beast and Mother Jones).
In contrast to Stockman’s principled stance, didn’t Daniels just go along with what W and the rest of the Cabinet wanted? I’ve mentioned Daniels before but I do wonder whether he has the charisma to get the nomination. Perhaps it’s just that his management style isn’t as pugnacious as Christie (former United States Attorney)? I don’t care, so long as he’s able to help get the country’s finances in order.
Gary Johnson is running now. It will be interesting to watch the libertarian wing (whatever remains of it) of the GOP try to figure out whether to support Johnson or Paul. The Joker in me would love to see a Secretary of the Treasury Ron Paul.
In addition to the example of Stockman, Paul O’Neill was in the Bush White House at the same time as Daniels and managed to get himself booted over disagreements with Bush. Daniels seemed to have had less of a problem water-carrying for disastrous policies then O’Neill did, in anycase.
So while its nice that after helping to rip a several hundred billion dollar hole in the US’s budget, he managed to find a couple hundred million to put Indiana in the black, I think its a pretty big stretch to call him a deficit hawk. For anyone not lucky enough to live in the great state of Indiana, his actions have done far more harm then good.