Friday, April 27, 2012

The Left Starts To Consider Who To Run Against Palin 2016

The left via Politico (D) commences its consideration of who they might run in 2016. A liberal New Yorker- Cuomo versus a true conservative-Palin after eight years of liberalism will be a no-contest Palin landslide.

Clinton would be a tougher, but hardly insurmountable task no doubt, but the odds against her running at 70 and after the public would be looking for change (and recovery) are high.

Here is an extract from the main article  AT THIS LINK;

Cuomo vs. Clinton in 2016?
By: Maggie Haberman
April 26, 2012 04:43 AM EDT

Welcome to my announcement to run for president of Malta,” Hillary Clinton joked Wednesday night as she took the stage at Lincoln Center, where she was one of 100 luminaries honored by Time magazine.
Surveying the crowd, the globe-trotting secretary of state added: “I was delighted to see our wonderful governor Andrew Cuomo is on the Time 100 list, along with others, like Marco Rubio, and … the two of them and I have ended up on some other lists this past couple of months.”
Clinton had barely finished the sentence before the crowd laughed knowingly. Yet with that coy nod to two other people who are frequently mentioned as 2016 presidential contenders, Clinton fanned the speculation about whether she’s planning to make a second-act presidential run in four years.
The not-so-idle chatter has real-world impact in New York political circles, raising the tantalizing possibility of a civil war among the state’s two biggest political titans in 2016. If Clinton does decide to run, will Cuomo — driven, politically popular and keenly aware of strong political moments — also barrel ahead? Or will Clinton, with her national network of donors and base of support, clear the field?

Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.

Five reasons (actually six) why a Romney loss might (actually, will) be great news for Republicans

There are actually SIX  reasons-the sixth  which I  add on to the end of the writers 5th in italics here;

"Better that the GOP remain in the political wilderness for another four years (and, hopefully, find itself) than have a Romney presidency prolong its intellectual and moral confusion."

 to which I add " and then a true conservative i.e. Sarah Palin can be nominated and  win in 2106"


Five reasons why a Romney loss might be great news for Republicans

By Shikha Dalmia Thursday, April 26, 2012

    Now that this week’s five-state primary victory has all but assured Mitt Romney the Republican presidential nomination, the conservative commentariat will likely jump on the Romney bandwagon and try to steer it to the White House. Romney might have his flaws, it’ll argue, but he’s the lesser evil compared to Barack Obama, whose labor-friendly, green-obsessed, spendthrift, soak-the-rich ways will finish off what’s left of the economy.

Perhaps. But here are five reasons why Republicans — and the country — might be better off if Romney loses.

One: Smart folks are betting that the Supreme Court will outlaw the individual mandate but leave the rest of Obamacare to Congress. Hence, one conservative argument for a Romney victory is that, combined with a GOP-controlled Congress, it’ll offer the last hope for repealing the law. But repeal is not an end in itself. The question is, can the GOP replace Obamacare with sensible market-based reforms?


Republicans are as loath as Democrats to eliminate the other poison pill in Obamacare: forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, something that a majority of Americans support. Indeed, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has declared that, on this issue, “Republicans share some of the same goals as Democrats.” But the odds of Romney defying the party leadership and embracing a politically unpopular position are roughly the same as Hamas embracing Israel. Ronald Reagan might have. But Romney?

The most likely scenario is that President Romney and congressional Republicans will end up fighting with Democrats to wangle bigger subsidies for insurance companies to help them fulfill the mandate — not the mandate itself. A Republican administration will thus become complicit in turning insurance companies into regulated public utilities receiving government money and protection in exchange for providing a government-mandated service. This is halfway to socialized medicine — something conservatives are allegedly against, remember?

Two: Commentators like Michael Gerson maintain that precisely because Romney has been a serial flipper previously, he’ll be less likely to flop now on conservative issues. But Romney’s desperation to establish his street cred with the base is not a blessing when it comes to government spending.

He’s struck a distressingly bellicose tone on national defense, proclaiming that he wants a “military so powerful that no one would ever think of challenging it” — never mind that America already spends more on defense than the next 15 nations combined. To demonstrate his resolve, he has proposed to lock the Pentagon’s annual budget at a minimum of 4 percent of the GDP, regardless of the external threat environment. This works out to $2.5 trillion in additional spending over a decade, surpassing even Obamacare’s real price tag by about a trillion dollars.

But if he doesn’t “flop” on this promise, there’s no way he’ll be able to bargain entitlement spending cuts with Democrats — and he might well end up as big a spender as George W. Bush and Obama.

Three: Both the left and the right, according to the polls, are troubled by the fact that America is becoming a land of crony capitalism. No doubt that’s why Romney has been mouthing clumsy platitudes about how “you’ve got to stop the spread of crony capitalism” and striking a brave pose against the auto bailout.

But, tellingly, the financial bailout was just fine with him. That’s no coincidence. He is, after all, the ultimate Wall Street insider, receiving millions of dollars in subsidies and government handouts for companies he was trying to rescue as CEO of Bain Capital. He might not be running with the intention of helping his corporate pals, but it is inevitable that they’ll have his ear. Someone less naturally suited to shutting the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington is hardly imaginable.

Four: If Romney wins this election, odds are he’ll automatically be the Republican nominee in 2016. Regardless of whether he wins then, this will effectively kill all prospects for putting a more serious Republican reformer (such as Wisconsin’s Rep. Paul Ryan) in the White House until 2020 or 2024. It might be far better to swallow hard and accept another Obama term to keep the path clear for a Republican more likely to deal with our fiscal and political dysfunction, rather than elect President Romney and block that possibility for another generation.

Five: The GOP is in a state of intellectual flux, illustrated perfectly by the ideological heterodoxy of its presidential field. Various strains representing different interests are fighting for the soul of the GOP: The neocons are duking it out with anti-war Paulistas. Social moderates are trying to wrest some space from pro-life religious conservatives. Deficits and debt worry everyone, but there is no consensus on entitlement reform. The GOP allegedly stands for the free market — but it has yet to figure out whether Bush’s financial bailout was right or wrong.

A visionless, rudderless, gaffe-prone presidency is the last thing that Republicans need right now. Having to defend Romney’s slips — he’s insulted 7-Eleven cookies, said he enjoys firing people, and announced he is not concerned about the very poor, and that’s just this year — will further contort the party’s soul. Four years of Romneyisms, all of which smack of elitism, will cement the image of the GOP as the party of the rich and out-of-touch.

Better that the GOP remain in the political wilderness for another four years (and, hopefully, find itself) than have a Romney presidency prolong its intellectual and moral confusion.

Shikha Dalmia is a Reason Foundation senior analyst.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Texas Blog Links To Palin4President 2016 As Movement Gathers Pace

alg_rick-perry-gun.jpgDaily Show writers, start saving up those jokes. Still Governor Rick Perry has promised to consider a second run for the Presidency.
In an interview Wednesday night, Perry told CBS reporter Jack Finke that he would not rule out a second run in 2016. He said, "As long as my health stays good, as it is, and my family is supportive, I'm certainly going to give it a good examination."
It's a statement that sounds almost as coy as his previous I'm-not-interested-but-really-I-kinda-sorta-am-interested responses to similar questions, back in those halcyon days when he appeared to restless conservatives to be the ultimate Not-Mitt-Romney. But although his interview demeanor certainly looks sincere, we wonder whether he's really thought this all through. After all, a 2016 run--assuming his party's nominee wins this year--would place him in the position of being a primary challenger. That's an awkward place for someone who dislikes losing as much as our governor seems to. Then again, perhaps Perry, like his former rival Rick Santorum, simply doesn't think much of Romney's chances this year.
You may be wondering who would get behind Perry for a second run. Apparently, there are some. Already, a Facebook page has popped up, Rick Perry 4 President 2016Palin4President 2016 is contemplating the possible outcome of the two glossy-plumaged Tea Party darlings going mano-a-mano.
So writers, start storing up those one-liners. 'Cause God willin' and the creeks don't rise, you'll have Rick Perry to kick around in 2016.

Gov. Palin won’t run — Palin for president in 2016

I was dismayed, but not very surprised, last night when I heard that Gov. Palin announced she has decided not to run for president in this election cycle. I was hoping she was hanging back to let the field thin out. Allahpundit at Hot Air says it’s a smart call and links Charles Krauthammer saying the same thing. Allahpundit has the following consoling observation:
Maybe she’ll focus now on challenging Begich for Senate in Alaska in 2014, which would be a huge first step back towards national viability down the road. She’s 47 years old, fully 25 years younger than McCain was when he was nominated three years ago. No rush.
However, as Prof. Jacobson points out at Legal Insurrection, Red State’s Erick Erickson went a different way:
At a moment when Erickson could have shown himself to be a mensch he showed himself to be a schmuck. And of course, managed to make it about him. As pointed out in the comments, he is asking “Can we all be friends now?” The answer is no.
Click the link to see why.
Thanks to a post by GOProud’s Christopher Barron at his new personal blog, The Real Red Barron (an homage to the Twitter handle of conservative bisexual singer Sophie B. Hawkins, @therealsophieb), I may see my way clear to supporting Herman Cain:
Finally, far from attacking gay people, Mr. Cain has made it clear that he is willing to be a President for all Americans – including gay people. Mr. Cain does not support a federal marriage amendment, will not reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, supports policies like the Fair Tax, free market healthcare reform and social security personal savings accounts – all of which would benefit gay and lesbian Americans.
I believe that if Herman Cain wins the Republican nomination, he is now the only candidate we have who could beat Obama. The most important reason is he is a real fiscal conservative, while the other candidates are primarily social conservatives. We can only win by showing how fiscal conservatism will restore America to prosperity because our most serious problems for the foreseeable future are economic, not social. If we run a social conservative who is consumed with zeal to solve problems that loom small in the minds of most Americans, the Left and independents will stick with the devil they know. The promise of religious tyranny coupled with fiscal sacrifice is not going to sell.
Two more important reasons Herman Cain can beat Obama are that he would remove the race card from Obama’s bag of tricks and could split the black vote. How much fun is that going to be to watch? I am gleeful at the prospect.
However, I think there’s a kind of laziness, which I don’t understand, among the wealthy Republican donors, the RNC and campaign strategists that will result in Romney being the nominee because they believe he can win, regardless of Romneycare and multifarious other fundamental failings, because he is handsome and rich. This is a miscalculation of epic proportions. But it does help me understand why frustrated Republicans call it “the non-smart party.” I think the best we can hope for is winning Republican control of both houses of Congress in 2012 so we can thwart as many of Obama’s fell initiatives as possible in his second term.
With regard to Gov. Palin, I do hope she sets her sights on running for president in 2016 to succeed Obama. When Gov. Palin spoke on Sept. 3 to a Tea Party audience in Indianola, Iowa, she laid out the most positive and practical path for restoring America to prosperity of any of the candidates. She has the ability to make people believe in themselves and their ability to overcome their greatest challenges, which is not only required for a nation to prosper but also is the most powerful cure for the pathological desire to depend on the government to solve every problem. If she does what she has to do to overcome the objections that establishment Republicans had to her candidacy this time around, she is exactly the person most capable of cleaning up the mess that Obama will leave.
Dear Stacy McCain has poll results and more insights on the surge in support for Herman Cain.
Update, 10/8/11, Sat.: Today American Thinker published an essay by Robert Eugene Simmons, Jr., who arrives at the same conclusion as mine, “Palin’s Withdrawal Means Obama Wins.” Simmons adds the point that Gov. Romney is the father of Romneycare, which was the model for Obamacare, so Obama will shellack him with that. I also want to note that Republicans would lose the issue of repealing Obamacare if Romney is the nominee. I don’t know why the Republican establishment is so hot to make the 2012 election a contest between Obama and Obama Lite. Like me, Simmons thinks the best case scenario, with Gov. Palin out of contention, is to keep the House and win the Senate so we can thwart Obama’s socialist agenda, while the worst case would be Obama with a Democratic Congress and not-much-better would be Romney with a Republican Congress.

A New Facebook Site Tebow/Palin 2016. Wonderful Enthusiasm Out There Indeed

Such is the enthusiasm for Sarah Palin for President 2016 (which by its very nature admits that either Romney will lose or will be a one termer-most likely the former) that all sorts of support sites are popping up. Here is a new one which is certainly interesting! Tebow/Palin 2016 (I presume the order would be Palin/ Tebow actually)

The link is HERE for those interested in following it up

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Rick Perry Vs Palin In 2015? Perry Announces Possible Run

According to Teagan Goddard 
 AT THIS LINK Texas Governor Rick Perry hasn't had enough of public humiliation on the campaign trail ( read the comments below Goddard's article at the link-they are excruciatingly embarrassing) and is "leaning to running for president in 2016."

I am sure the Romney campaign will be delighted with this admission by one of the former front-runners that either Romney will be defeated in November or, if elected, will face a challenge from Perry during his first term. 

Perry indicates he would start his run in 2015 just three years into Romney's term-if there is a Romney term of course. Statements like Perry's will help to ensure that Rick has a run against the record of a sitting Democrat president in 2015.

Perry has to be selected then re-elected as Texas Governor first of course and if through his machinations Romney is defeated in 2012 he may find a more formidable opponent than Romney in 2015 by the name of Palin, whose endorsement of Perry against Hutchison helped him get re-elected last time, running against him for the presidency.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

New Palin 2016 Facebook Site Christians & Jews for Palin 2016

Here is a new FaceBook Palin 2016 site if you are interested in joining click ON THIS LINK (not on the pictures below)

Palin 2016!

Palin 2016!

Over at the AtlanticJosh Green and Andrew Sullivan are having something of a feud, complete with not-so-restrained insults, about the question of whether Sarah Palin will run for president in 2012 -- Josh says no, Andrewsays yes. There are reasonable cases to be made on each side, but I'm in leaning Josh's direction.
I'll admit that I find Palin to be a fascinating political figure, not least because of the fact that someone of such modest intelligence, experience, and overall political gifts can nonetheless manage to, well, make so many people fascinated with her. Let's put aside for the moment the terrifying implications of a Palin presidency. Could she actually do it?
To answer, you have to look first at what it would take to succeed at it. Running a successful presidential campaign is incredibly difficult, and dozens of smart, talented, motivated people have tried to do it and failed miserably. You need a combination of political dexterity, judgment, knowledge, and vision -- not to mention super-human stamina and drive.
Every presidential campaign, furthermore, has moments of crisis, where the candidate gets tested. In 2008, Barack Obama faced Hillary Clinton's comeback victory in New Hampshire, the Reverend Wright imbroglio, and the economic meltdown, to name just a few. Looking back, it's clear that at all those points, he made exactly the right strategic decision, then executed his plan adroitly. Try to imagine Palin facing those kinds of campaign crises. Do you think she'd navigate them with that kind of skill?
To you and me, the obvious answer is: Are you kidding? But Palin has never lacked for confidence or the belief that whatever she decides to do, God himself wants her to do that thing. So she'd pass the first hurdle: She probably thinks that if she ran, she'd win. She happens to be terribly wrong about that -- as Green points out, among the things you have to do in a presidential campaign is "persuade people who don't already worship you," which will be particularly hard for her.
But does she want to run? Even though she only spent 10 weeks on the campaign trail in 2008, she probably also has a good idea of what slogging through the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire to get to a gathering of a dozen people in someone's living room might be like, and I doubt it's her cup of tea.
There's a very good chance that when 2012 rolls around, the economy will be in far better shape than it is today, Obama's approval ratings will be up, and it will be a long shot for any Republican to win, let alone Palin. But 2016? That's a different story. Don't forget that Palin is only 46 years old. She could spend the next five years as the most important media star in the GOP firmament, watchMitt Romney get his hat handed to him, and be perfectly positioned for that election.
It could be a comeback akin to Richard Nixon's in 1968. I can't wait.
-- Paul Waldman