Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Post-Cain Stuff

    Post-Cain Stuff

    In the wake of Herman Cain’s suspension of his campaign, lots of movement:

    • Michele Bachmann claims to be picking up Cain supporters.  Just stop it.  Just stop it.  This is the same thing you pulled over the summer about Palin planning to endorse you.
    • Rick Santorum seems like a nice guy, someone who is very genuine.  But his train will not be leaving the station.  If Newt’s endorsement of Dede Scozzafava over Doug Hoffman is a disqualifier, why isn’t Santorum’s endorsement of Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey?
    • One issue Newt is going to have is hard feelings from his days as Speaker.  Apparently he was tough on people, and they remember.  My view:  Boo hoo, get over it and focus on beating Obama.
    • The L.A. Times is digging into Bain Capital, and starting to do to Romney what Teddy did so well (for the record, I think it’s a distortion, but unfortunately for Romney, one which works in 30 second commercials).
    • A bunch of Iowa polls show Newt in the lead.  Take nothing for granted.
    • Perry staff feels it’s well positioned, but organization is not enough.  Karl at HotAir asks whether Perry can stage a comeback and concludes it’s not likely.

    Completely off topic, this headline at Instapundit (Legless Man Denied Wheelchair) reminded me of the best headline ever.

    Update:  Byron York, The insider-outsider divide over Newt Gingrich:

    There’s a deep and growing divide in the Republican world between those who are able to reconcile themselves with — to wrap their heads around — the possibility of Newt Gingrich becoming the GOP presidential nominee, and those who are not.  It’s becoming increasingly clear that it is Washington insiders who are having the most trouble imagining a Gingrich nomination, while Republicans outside Washington aren’t having a problem.

    The insiders — Tom Coburn, Peter King, Guy Molinari — complain about slights to them by Newt, while the outsiders remember the triumph of the Contract with America, balanced budgets, welfare reform, the end of big government as we know it. So Newt is an infighter and tought as nails — good.  Bruised egos need not apply.  See post earlier today, “Gingrich may be a lightning rod, but he also embodies the revolution like no one else”.

    Some more views:

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    JEBurke | December 4, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    The Professor asks why if Newt’s support of Dede Scozzafava in the upstate NY special election a while back is a disqualifier, why isn’t Rick Santorum’s support for Arlen Specter in the 2004 also?

    I don’t happen to think that Newt’s endorsement of Dede is in any sense disqualifying, but it was kind of wierd, so let me take a shot at distinguishing them.

    In 2004, Specter, a flat out liberal, was challenged by the conservative Toomey. Ideological conviction might have told Santorum to stay out of the primary race, but then, like him or not, at that point in time, Specter was not only a long serving, INCUMBENT Republican Senator but Santorum’s other half in representing their state. What’s more, as untrustworthy as Specter was, when Specter won the primary, TOOMEY endorsed him too. So did President Bush and a very long list of other Republicans. Specter subsequently turned coat on the GOP but the situation that faced Santorum back in 2004 was one where Republican leaders were striving to keep Specter from jumping ship, at least on some key issues. (None of this is in any way a defense of Specter.)

    In the upstate NY race, it was a special election to fill a vacant House seat. Dede was the GOP candidate but because it was a special, she had been selected by a small group of party committeemen, not voters. She was not an incumbent Repubican member of Congress. And because she was a liberal and chosen in a narrow process, a conservative, Doug Hoffman, ran against her (and the Democrat) on the Conservative Party ticket with an excellent chance to win. His candidacy overnight became a cause for many conservatives nationally and Hoffman got wide support from movement conservatives and some GOP elected officials.

    Along came Newt — the ONLY national figure associated with conservative Republicnism to endorse Dede, with a warmly enthusiastic statement to boot. Given the nature of the race — no incumbent and two liberals vs. a conservative — no one would have noticed had Newt said nothing. Certainly, there was no pressure to rally behind a Republican incumbent, as in Pennsylvania and Dede had little chance to win. The obvious way to beat the Democrat was to elect Hoffman would have ca


     
     0 
     
     0
    JEBurke | December 4, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    The Professor asks why if Newt’s support of Dede Scozzafava in the upstate NY special election a while back is a disqualifier, why isn’t Rick Santorum’s support for Arlen Specter in the 2004 also?

    I don’t happen to think that Newt’s endorsement of Dede is in any sense disqualifying, but it was kind of wierd, so let me take a shot at distinguishing them.

    In 2004, Specter, a flat out liberal, was challenged by the conservative Toomey. Ideological conviction might have told Santorum to stay out of the primary race, but then, like him or not, at that point in time, Specter was not only a long serving, INCUMBENT Republican Senator but Santorum’s other half in representing their state. What’s more, as untrustworthy as Specter was, when Specter won the primary, TOOMEY endorsed him too. So did President Bush and a very long list of other Republicans. Specter subsequently turned coat on the GOP but the situation that faced Santorum
    back in 2004 was one where Republican leaders were striving to keep Specter from jumping ship,
    at least on some key issues. (None of this is in any way a defense of Specter.)
    In the upstate NY race, it was a special election to fill a vacant House seat. Dede was the GOP
    candidate but because it was a special, she had been selected by a small group of party
    committeemen, not voters. She was not an incumbent Repubican member of Congress. And
    because she was a liberal and chosen in a narrow process, a conservative, Doug Hoffman, ran
    against her (and the Democrat) on the Conservative Party ticket with an excellent chance to win.
    His candidacy overnight became a cause for many conservatives nationally and Hoffman got wide
    support from movement conservatives and some GOP elected officials.
    Along came Newt — the ONLY national figure associated with conservative Republicnism to endorse
    Dede, with a warmly enthusiastic statement to boot. Given the nature of the race — no incumbent
    and two liberals vs. a conservative — no one would have noticed had Newt said nothing. Certainly,
    there was no pressure to rally behind a Republican incumbent, as in Pennsylvania and Dede had
    little chance to win. The obvious way to beat the Democrat was to elect Hoffman.

    So why did Newt intervene to help Dede? Beats me. That’s Newt being Newt.


     
     0 
     
     0
    S. Browne | December 5, 2011 at 1:09 am

    Michele Bachmann is a principled, Tea Party conservative. Indeed, she has been a leading light in that movement.

    I am surprised and very disappointed by the efforts to dismiss her candidacy, especially by otherwise intelligent people on the right whom I respect.

    We have seen other candidates who are, frankly, less of a track record of being principled conservatives than Bachmann pushed to the front (reasonably so at the time) — Perry, Cain — only to see them implode.

    Bachmann understands what does and does not make an economy work. It is highly unlikely that she has skeletons in her closet of the type Cain had – and certainly not the sort of heavy baggage that Newt Gingrich has. She does not flip flop back and forth on basic issues like climate change, as Newt has.

    So that leaves Romney. But his Mormonism will post a difficult challenge come the general election (once the primaries are over, Democrats will pull out all the stops. You haven’t heard anything yet.) But we can’t let Dems choose our candidates for us, so let’s set that aside. Let’s look simply at Romney’s signature piece of legislation — Romneycare.

    Need I say more?

    Professor Jacobson, I do respect you, but you’ve got some reason for opposing Bachmann at this point that goes beyond the examples you have cited. You claim that she (or her campaign, to be more accurate) has claimed to have support that she does not, and/or has unfairly attacked others. But the examples you have given are fairly mild. If we are being intellectually honest, and I know that you are indeed intellectually honest, you could easily find several examples of far greater errors by Romney’s campaign and by Gingrich’s campaign.

    So I’m not buying these dismissals of Bachmann. It makes little to no sense, and I think our country can ill afford it at this time.

    I was not in any candidate’s camp at the outset, but from what I can see of how the campaigns have played out, the last man standing on the GOP side is a woman — a good, strong, principled, articulated Tea Party conservative. So today I do support Michele Bachmann, and I hope she sees some upward momentum in the polls. Our country needs her.


       
       0 
       
       0
      boone in reply to S. Browne. | December 5, 2011 at 8:37 am

      You do realize that Bachmann is stumping hard for Romney’s VP, and lobbing grenades in the tent to get there. I used to like her, but frankly find her toxic now.


     
     0 
     
     0
    S. Browne | December 5, 2011 at 1:18 am

    And by the way, since when is it a disqualifying breach of etiquette for a candidate to criticize their opponents during the primary season? How is any candidate to gain traction in a field of candidates if they do not point out that they have something their opponents are lacking?

    I’ll admit did not like how Tim Pawlenty went after Bachmann in one of the debate shortly before he dropped out. I’ve cringed to see some of the face-offs between Romney and Perry. So even i can agree that some attacks on competing candidates are over the top.

    But if Perry had not had serious brain freezes on several occasions, his rather blunt attacks on Romney would not have disqualified him. Is Bachmann being denied the same latitude to make criticism of fellow candidates that we normally allow more traditional candidates? I don’t know. I just think that torpedoing her candidacy for daring to say a discouraging word about a candidate against whom she is running is a bit much.

    Again, let’s focus, people. We need a strong, principled conservative in the White House, plus control of the Senate. That’s it.

    Romney is not the Oval Office half of that equation. Gingrich warmed my heart greatly when he was Speaker of the House. He is a wonderful, shining light — except when he is making PSAs with Nancy Pelosi or criticizing conservatives. It’s his inconsistencies that worry me.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Darkstar58 in reply to S. Browne. | December 5, 2011 at 1:06 pm

      And by the way, since when is it a disqualifying breach of etiquette for a candidate to criticize their opponents during the primary season? How is any candidate to gain traction in a field of candidates if they do not point out that they have something their opponents are lacking?

      Newt hasn’t attacked a single person that I have seen, and its a huge part of why people are supporting him now.

      On the other end of the spectrum, I don’t think I have seen Bachmann answer a single question without turning the topic into an outright attack against at least one of her competitors. Similarly, if one of the other candidates says something a little questionable, you can bet she will be the first to comment — quite likely only moments after it happened.

      Michele is not really running a campaign to win on her platform — I could barley tell you what she stands for despite my seeing her on news programs probably at least once a day (I see her much, much, much more then, well quite possibly all the other candidates put together) Instead, she seems to be running on a “I’m not them” platform, turning every question she is asked into a way for her to describe one of the others plan and for her to try to punch holes in it. Its disgusting to watch, and frankly has had me loose every ounce of respect I had for her.

      And because of the above I started thinking about who she really is. I mean, this is a candidate who has claimed she started the Tea Party… This is a candidate who, for some reason, decided she would create a “Tea Party Caucus” – as if the Tea Party needed to be yet another one of the countless caucus no one respects with a self-appointed strong leader that no one has ever wanted them to have. I mean, this is a self-appointed “Tea Party darling” who hired Ed Rollins (40-year political insider with Amnesty pushing fame) to run her campaign, where he instantly came out and gave us this beauty of a quote:

      “Sarah has not been serious over the last couple of years,” Rollins told Brian Kilmeade on his radio show, Kilmeade and friends. “She got the Vice Presidential thing handed to her, she didn’t go to work in the sense of trying to gain more substance, she gave up her governorship.

      Michele Bachmann and others [have] worked hard, she has been a leader of the Tea Party which is a very important element here, she has been an attorney, she has done important things with family values.”

      In the end, I’ve come to what I feel is probably the most realistic assessment of Michele Bachmann based off what she has provided to us — she is a media whore willing to step all over anyone in her way if she can get the chance to hear herself talk and possibly get some people to praise her.

      She is not a “Tea Party” candidate – she is a “Me Party” candidate; and its beyond disgusting…

    That’s a pretty blatant mischaracterization of the Hot Air article on Perry, which says a comeback is not likely IF his campaign doesn’t CONTINUE to improve. Which means he is on course for a comeback.

    Not much different than referencing an article that Newt has no chance if he decides to sit on the couch with Nancy Pelosi again during the campaign, and summarizing the article as saying Newt has no chance.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend