10 GOP Endorsements That Still Matter in 2012’s Presidential Election

Daily Beast ^ | Dec 8, 2011 | John Avalon

[presidio9]

Did Dan Quayle’s endorsement help Mitt Romney’s campaign?

Probably not. But just because that bland, punch-line-ready pairing seemed like a sad response to plummeting poll numbers doesn’t mean endorsements don’t matter.

Caucuses and primaries can come down to a few hundred votes, and the right endorsement at the right time can make a pivotal difference, providing a local boost, balancing negative perceptions, or rallying the base.

The fault lines in this GOP primary—now between Newt Gingrich and Romney, with Ron Paul rounding out the winner’s circle—follow the divisions between establishment and insurgent conservatives that have defined the GOP for decades.

To date, Romney has rounded up the most endorsements by far: three governors, including Chris Christie, six senators, and 40 members of Congress. But even support from the smart money can’t buy you love, as Mitt’s poll numbers have fallen in states like Florida just days after receiving supposedly influential local endorsements.

-SNIP-

The 10: (commentary deleted)

1. Sarah Palin 2. Jeb Bush 3. Terry Branstad 4. Marco Rubio 5. Jim DeMint 6. John McCain 7. Nikki Haley 8. Rudy Giuliani 9. Herman Cain 10. Rick Scott

[presidio9]

Sarah Palin needs a bit more seasoning before anyone outside of her hard 10% base will take her seriously. She needs a cabinet position, or some time in the Senate to get there. You might not think so, be she does. It's the only reason she's not running right now. She can't be stupid, and endorse the wrong guy. And she won't be endorsing Romney. That would cut into her base. But if and when it becomes clear that Gingrich has a shot, she will throw her weight behind him in return for that spot in the admistration. It may lead to a bad taste in your mouth, but all politics is about comprimise.

If Gingrich gets elected without her, there is no upside to putting a cult-like figure in a spot where he is going to have to disagree with her occasionally and very possibly fire her eventually. She is smart enough to know that too.

[presidio9]

Rush and people like him can’t risk actually picking against any one candidate who can win. If they did, they would sound like hypocrites defending them against Obama for six months. Between the lines, he has made his distaste for Romney clear enough.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks presidio9.

1. Sarah Palin
2. Jeb Bush
3. Terry Branstad
4. Marco Rubio
5. Jim DeMint
6. John McCain
7. Nikki Haley
8. Rudy Giuliani
9. Herman Cain
10. Rick Scott

Mitt's got his downline campaign loaded up -- after all, he's done nothing but run for President for six or seven years now, maybe longer. He's enjoyed watching (and maybe causing) the sudden crashes of other candidates after they'd been flying high, and only Newt is hard-nosed enough to not care what anyone knows about him or thinks about him or spreads rumors about him. I just don't want to see a bunch of whining this summer about how some nefarious, nebulous "them" in the Pubbie hierarchy engineered the Romney victory. If Romney gets the nomination, it will be because people voted for him more than they voted for others.

After sixteen years of FDR/Truman -- the same length of time Hannibal spent wrecking Italy, btw -- we got Eisenhower for eight years and the Warren Court.

Then we got hawkish taxcutter JFK (not often recounted that way around here), followed by LBJ, whose only talent was wheeling and dealing to score meaningless victories, such as his victory with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

In 1964 Goldwater was beaten badly, four years later Nixon -- who'd infamously retired from politics in 1962 -- won a narrow victory over LBJ's bitchy stevedore HHH. The margin of Nixon's victory was about as narrow as the margin of his defeat had been in 1960. As Erlichman once said, Nixon had wanted one thing, the Presidency, all his adult life, and when he finally had it in his hands, he dropped it on the floor and it broke. And around here, there's nonstop bitching about Nixon (and of course Ford) for various reasons real and bogus.

Then there was the narrow victory of Carter and four disastrous years. Carter also blamed his two predecessors as he ignored the very problems he'd (allegedly) inherited while creating more. There are still idiots I know who want him to have a second term. I look forward to the day I get to urinate on his grave, although I'd settle for his being blown to bits by jihadists over his (incompetent) involvement in the Camp David Accords.

From 1981 to 1989 we had Reagan, who had gabby David Stockman in his administration, got a JFK-like set of tax cuts, lost those tax cuts in the next Congress, and pulled us out of Lebanon with our tails between our legs after the jihadist bombings; but on the bright side remilitarized us, rebuilt the armed services, and pushed the USSR into receivership while simultaneously pushing Gorby to agree to nuclear disarmament with verification and shared missile defense. The federal deficits rose enormously under Reagan, but the economy took off; the bull market continued until the daytrader / tech bubble finally broke late in Slick's second term.

Next up was the elder Bush, who presided over the final breakup of the USSR, but like the good (transplanted) Texan that he was, and like Reagan before him, screwed Israel. This is another reason I vomit when I see "and yet Jews vote Democrat in every election" in half the topics on FR.

Thanks to everyone her who didn't think the elder Bush was quite good enough and/or thought Ross Perot was a great idea, and helped usher in eight years of Clinton. I look forward to urinating on the graves of both Clintons, I hope I can make just the one trip.

Have a great Sunday, all.

[presidio9]

I would add that in 1976 Ford was the “establishment” GOP candidate, and Ronald Reagan was “his own worst enemy,” “didn’t appeal to independants,” “too radical,” and, of course, “couldn’t win.”