Posted on 11/24/2010 12:54:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin wasted little time firing back at Barbara Bush, who used an interview with Larry King early this week to express her hope that Palin will stay in Alaska.
"I think the majority of Americans don't want to put up with the blue bloods," Palin said on Laura Ingraham's radio show on Wednesday. "And I say it with all due respect because I love the Bushes. The blue bloods who want to pick and choose their winners instead of allowing competition to pick and choose the winners."
While it's true that Barbara Bush remains a well-liked figure, particularly within the Republican Party, there's really little risk for Palin in taking this shot. The GOP used to be driven by the old line, Mayflower-ish, country club-types that Barbara and George H.W. represent. Remember that George H.W. Bush essentially ran as a Rockefeller Republican in the 1980 presidential race, branding Ronald Reagan's tax cut program "voodoo economics" and indicating support for abortion rights. With the rise of Reagan conservatism, Bush's crowd was marginalized and, in many cases, driven out of the party altogether.
This is why it's noteworthy that George H.W. Bush, in the same Larry King interview with his wife, appeared to endorse Mitt Romney for the 2012 GOP nod:
He's a reasonable guy. He's a conservative fellow, that's good. But no, I think he'd be a good president, a very good president.
If you asked me, who will the nominee be, I couldn't tell you. We like Mitt Romney. We know him well and like him very much.
As I've written before, Romney is the closest thing there is in today's GOP politics to another George H.W. Bush. Like Bush, he was born into a family of status and privilege and entered politics as a moderate, establishment Republican; the Romney who ran for Senate in Massachusetts in 1994 sounded fairly similar to the the Bush who ran for president in 1980.
But also like Bush, Romney is ultimately an ambitious opportunist. When his '80 campaign fizzled, Bush quickly recognized that the GOP was rapidly turning into an ideologically cohesive right-wing party in Reagan's mold. He maneuvered his way onto the GOP ticket with Reagan, renounced his primary campaign rhetoric, and spent the next eight years laboring to convince members of the GOP's New Right base that he was one of them. Romney has pursued the same course. In the run-up to his 2008 campaign, he walked back one position after another that he'd staked out in Massachusetts, desperately trying to align himself with the sensibilities of the party's right-wing national base.
Even Romney's famous late-2007 defense of his Mormon faith (delivered at George H.W. Bush's presidential library!), widely portrayed by the press as a passionate defense of religious liberty, can be viewed as more of a cynical campaign ploy -- an effort to convince fundamentalist Christians that they should consider him one of them. If anything, the speech called to mind Bush's ridiculous attempt in 1987 to win over Evangelical leaders by claiming to be a born-again Episcopalian.
In 1988, Bush was able to pull off his chameleon act, mainly because of the leg-up he got from running as Reagan's loyal No. 2. Reagan refused to formally endorse Bush during the GOP primaries, but it was clear that Bush was running with the White House's blessing. Essentially, Bush used his two terms as vice president to cajole the New Right into giving him the benefit of the doubt -- which they did, with plenty of reluctance. (And that reluctance proved well-placed when Bush went back on his "no new taxes" pledge as president.)
This is why it can be hard to see Romney capturing the GOP nod in '12. The GOP base is even more conservative now than it was in 1988, and it's mood is far more restive. The Tea Party crowd isn't nearly as willing to give a suspected RINO the benefit of the doubt as the New Right forces were in '88 -- and Romney doesn't enjoy the political benefits of the vice presidency either. In this sense, Palin's back-and-forth with Barbara Bush could be a sign of trouble to come for Mitt. In a one-on-one fight with Palin (or Mike Huckabee, or maybe someone else) in 2012, he'll be the one playing the blueblood role -- which isn't a position any ambitious Republican wants to be in these days.
“if the establishment continues to attack Tea Party Americans (and her), it would mean the destruction of the GOP.”
I am betting, Al, that the country will have decided to fire Obama in 2012. The GOP nominee will be the favorite. And the Establishment won’t be able to do anything about it. I could be wrong, but I think that is how it is shaping up.
They can destroy a novice candidate in a liberal state (DE)or a corrupt state (AK).
The United States is a whole different kettle of fish. Trying to do that in Florida, Michigan, Ohio or Wisconsin is not nearly as easy. They simply don’t have the ideological of organizational grip on those states.
And anyone who thinks Sarah Palin is a “novice candidate”, who can be rolled this way, is a fool. She is a politician of the first order. If she is running a campaign herself (not just endorsing, but making the decisions), I would never count it out. If she is both running the campaign and is herself the candidate, the odds of success are even higher, and a favorable poltical climate (ie-if the economy is not much better in 2012; unemployment below 7% which is highly unlikely) would make her invincible. In other words, her political savvy, plus her political skills (charisma, if you will) added to favorable circumstances for a challenger will make her next to unbeatable in a national election.
The “Romney saved the olympics, so he can be president” line is complete hogwash.
Whatever he did with the olympics has nothing to do with what our next president, or any president, needs to do. I’m sure Romney was very hands on and controlling when he “saved the olympics.”
But we already have a “hands on” president right now, look at his takeover of GM. And everything else.
To be president one needs to have the wisdom and the restraint to release the free markets from the grip of government.
What we need is a hands off president. Do you realize how difficult that is for a person sitting in the Oval Office? Bush claimed to be a hands off president but look what he did. Romney would be worse.
Watch it kid...
I have a Sarah Heath in my family lines...
My 5th g grandmother..
She was born in Great Cheverell, Wiltshire, England abt 1751 died abt 1834 and married John Dunford 18 Nov 1770..
I dont know how she was related to Sarah Heath Palin’s ancestor Joseph Heath from Wiltshire who came to the US in the 1700s...
and I have several early colonial families...
Dont make me list ‘em...
Well OK ask...
I have names dates etc...
:)
Listening to Dennis Miller. In discussing her as President, Miller says:
“I love to think of you and that big jet [Air Force One], plunking that down in Fairbanks...Murkowski looking out her window grinding her teeth to the pulp....”
I almost fell off the chair laughing.
The “Romney saved the olympics, so he can be president” line is complete hogwash.
___________________________________________
Well there was that government bailout that Romney arranged...
and did Romney do whatever he did for recognition of some big type ???
Knowing Romney. what do you think ???
Romney never has been a “shy guy”...
A shrinking violet usually doesnt use Botox and hair dye and Armani suits and kiss up to Barry and the gang......
We didn't have $100 trillion of unfunded mandates. We didn't have the HUGE dependency class suffocating hard-working people like we have today and although Carter was a disaster, he was just a naive fool. We now have a Marxist lunatic rapidly building a gigantic out-of-control bureaucracy that threatens our country's existence as a free nation.
We can't stand any more statist "tinkering class" Republicans that would basically transfer influence from one group of K-streeters to another. We're out of time and millions of Tea Partiers are sensing it. It's a beautiful thing.
I love the way you expressed the truth of Mitt. Pefect!
Uh oh. My “perfect” wasn’t.
Good points. I guess comparing the Olympics with the Presidency was silly. I am not sure why I went there. I believe maybe because of the organization and financial aspects of it. But you are correct, it has nothing to do with the Presidency.
Your sincerity is humbling.
you asked: “who is more economically skilled, Romney or Palin.”
Romney encumbered not just the entire state of MA with state controlled, state mandated healthcare that is already proving to be a catastrophic financial failure, but he encumbered the U.S. taxpayer in order to pay for his MA boondoggle of a healthcare program. And I challenge you to show me anywhere that mitt romney has ever cogently explained his strategy/plans to revive the economy. He actually went on beta-joe scarborough earlier this year complaining/whining to beta-joe that “obama has not created any jobs”. Any businessman knows that they don’t want obama in the way lecturing about job creation. They want free market principles to apply, allowing the market to decide who the winners are, not some soft-handed politician or trust fund boy that was handed 37 million dollars in the mid ‘80’s to invest with. I’d write more but time doesn’t allow.
Ok here is my take.(Take it for what its worth)Romney is no conservative so therefore he is not grounded.He will be pulled to the left like he was a governor(ROMNEY CARE!) and as happened to bush senior as president with raising taxes(HE LOST.For what Palin may lack in economic prowess she more than makes up for it will her conservative views with regards to gubmint.I bet she can pick the very best economic advisor.She will shrink the size of gubmint just as Ronald Reagan did and noone else since.With the gubmint out of the way the economy will take off just as it did because of Reagans policy.The bushes are backing romney as all bluebloods do which is not surprising and is all I need to know.Comes down to having a country club blueblood running the country or a grounded conservative.Its up to you to decide which way you want to go.
And I'm sure that Sarah will be happy to hire him for some position where he can be of use to his country (assuming that's what he REALLY wants to do). But as far as Mitt being in the center seat, I don't think so.
“The problem with the bush family is they have way too many liberals in it.”
Yes, like all of them!
No argument there.
I may have some good (and a bit of bad) news for you. According to this one chart, all presidents except Van Buren are descended from King John Lackland. http://weareallrelated.com/page.php?6
Since you have several colonial families I’m guessing you must share some of this same lineage. The bad news for me was that according to this chart, Reagan was one of my most distant presidential cousins and 0bama was one of my closest.
I wish you were right, but I don’t trust Republican primary voters in IA, NH, SC, FL, and VA. I think they will fall for the “Myth” again. After those five states speak, it’s about all over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.