Posted on 05/18/2011 5:25:30 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Top Republicans are increasingly convinced that President Barack Obama will be easily reelected if stronger GOP contenders do not emerge, and some are virtually begging Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to add some excitement to the slow-starting nomination race.
It’s a sign of the GOP’s straits that the party is depending on the bland, wonkish Daniels for an adrenaline boost.
But interviews this week with longtime party activists and strategists made clear that many in the Republican establishment are unnerved by a field led by Mitt Romney, who could have trouble confronting Obama on health reform; Tim Pawlenty, who has yet to ignite excitement; Jon Huntsman, who may be too moderate to get the nomination; and Newt Gingrich, weighed down by personal baggage and a sense that he is a polarizing figure from the 1990s.
Despairing Republican lobbyists say their colleagues don’t ask, “Who do you like?” but instead, “Who do we back?”
“It’s not that they’re up in arms,” said a central player in the GOP money machine. “It’s just that they’re depressed.”
And a huge swath of operatives, donors and strategists remain uncommitted, in the hope that the field is not yet set.
So instead of solidifying against the overwhelming force being amassed by Obama’s reelection campaign, the GOP is indulging in an embarrassingly public — and probably futile — search for a more compelling standard-bearer.
House Speaker John Boehner, the nation’s highest-ranking Republican, confessed that he did not watch the first GOP debate of the cycle because he believes there is still time for more candidates to emerge. He said last week on NBC’s “Today” show: “I would expect that we haven’t seen all of the candidates.” He then proceeded to plug Daniels.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
“Top Republicans”, “party establishment”, and Weeper of the House John Boehner.
These are not the sources I go to to determine who to support. In fact, if any of these are for someone, I would instinctively be opposed to their selection knowing what panty waists they all are.
I had already pretty much written Daniels off. But knowing that Boehner is for Daniels seals it for me.
There are no perfect candidates. But I will not support another Jorge Bush, Bob Dole, Juan McCain, Willard Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Mitch Daniels, or similar ilk just because the establishment insiders favor them.
There are candidates already in the race that I can support: Bachmann and, possibly, Cain (though I want to learn more about specifics of his positions).
And if someone like DeMint or Palin were to announce, it could be a real “game changer”.
“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of
the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being
moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has
already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at
every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the
strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly
struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the
civilization of ancient Rome.”
Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages
248-50, London: Longmans, Green Co., 1899).
Churchill got it - too bad you don’t.
You're ignorant and ill-informed, in other words, which is quite a trick if you spend any time here on FR.
It never ceases to shock me to see the media elite bias. If we all recall, Bush has a fairly decent growing economy, a huge 9-11 bump, an initially popular Iraq war, including capturing Saddam and killing his spawn, low unemployment, and a really good 2002 mid-term where we picked up seats. The party was on the ascendancy. The media proceeded to build up every possible Dem opponent (starting with Dean), and putting all their effort to take down Bush.
The media proceeded to browbeat the guy 24/7 about dead soldiers, and brought his numbers down...and created the false narrative of ‘lying to go to war’. If not for these propaganda techniques, Bush would have sailed to reelection with ease. Unfortunately, the anti-war sentiment did begin taking hold in the 12 months before the mid-term which made it close.
Now we have the polar opposite. Disastrous economy, high prices and dangerous unemployment, no growth, no economic optimism, a massive destruction of the Democratic party at all levels in the mid-terms, and the media propping up the stooge responsible while trying to destroy the opposition field.
Hey, that’s dynamite. If Churchill were running for President, I might vote for him. But he’s not. Mitch probably will, though, and if he does, I will vote for him.
Look, there are three viable candidates for President on the GOP side: Pawlenty, Romney, and Mitch. Pick one. I happen to think that Mitch is the best of the three.
———If we all recall-——
Blind FReepers can not see and can’t recall
Hurry somebody tell the democrats in the Northeast so they can vote in our primaries and give us this puke. That would be fun.
Just heard Zuckerman on FOX say that we (the GOP) won’t win the election unless we nominate a “centrist”
********************************
We’ve been doing that for over two decades, to the cost of everything that matters. Every single thing. I am done voting for “the lesser of two evils”. At the end of the day, it remains an evil. No more. Not once. Never again.
Daniels is fine - if you don’t mind muslims taking over America like they have in Europe. May as well keep Obama in office. And don’t rule Palin out. Or West. He still might change his mind. Some things are too important to overlook. Inviting muslims into America and the Governor’s Mansion is one of them.
With all due respect, it’s more than just “hosting some dinner.” Daniels has a very bad habit of doing little things like that or saying little things that by themselves, don’t mean that much, but the pattern shows he has a McCain type reflex to tweak his own team.
Besides, he’s attracting the Bush team folks, who are clearly not conservative.
We HATE that. Now he’s been a pretty good governor and I’ll vote for him over Obama if he wins the nomination. But I’m going to work hard against him in the primary in favor of either Cain, Palin, some others perhaps.
Actually, there is no need to know much about Daniels because he isn’t going anywhere.
AMEN bros. Nothing screws up our nomination process like starting it all off with the ethanol bots in Iowa followed by the very odd tiny state of New Hampshire infested by political cross dressers. It’s amazing Reagan ever got through that ridiculous system. (maybe it wasn’t that system then exactly - the R and D primaries weren’t always simultaneous).
He’s not going to run.
Not with his wishy washy, toe testing approach.
Rather don’t like his pro-Arab, RINO credentials anyway.
“Look, there are three viable candidates for President on the GOP side: Pawlenty, Romney, and Mitch. Pick one.”
Herpes, Syphilis and Gonorrhea. None of the above.
If he goes nowhere, that will be the reason--he's understated. In a world where reality tv stars are prospective candidates for the conservative party, a man like Daniels could very well fail to gain traction.
Pandering to Muslims is trait he has in common with Zero.
http://indianamuslims.org/index.php/events/governors-annual-iftar/98
I don’t care why he goes nowhere - just that he doesn’t.
McCain's problem was his voting record and his behavior with legislation. No one can point to Daniels's record as governor as anything but very conservative. About the most that you can really fault him for is when he first took office, he tried to push through a temporary tax increase to balance the budget. I disagreed with him on that and, after some fallout, he backed off.
But I think that Mitch is a pretty savvy guy and says and does very deliberate things. So he hosted a dinner to score some political points; as long as he's not bringing over hookers to the governor's mansion, I look at his record. And it's good.
For example, lots of people on this board gave Mitch all sorts of grief about his reaction to the Dem legislators fleeing the state--but who got the last laugh? The legislature came back and Mitch got his agenda passed. People here don't seem to realize that the guy just might know what he's doing when he says certain things.
Besides, he’s attracting the Bush team folks, who are clearly not conservative.
Agreed and a fair point. But I'll take Bush and his politics over Obama any day of the week.
But I’m going to work hard against him in the primary in favor of either Cain, Palin, some others perhaps.
I know it's not a particularly popular view on here, but I subscribe to the Buckley rule: I support the most conservative candidate who can win. Like I said upthread, I see three electable candidates from the GOP side. I view Mitch as the most conservative of the three.
Pandering to the muslims. Always a good sign.
Make up your mind.
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.