In a party based on principles, it takes time to build trust.

The latest poll is in, and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's numbers for 2012 are painful.  Rasmussen Reports gives him a "depressingly low" Future President support count of 4% (mostly Minnesotans?) in a poll of 750 Americans.  In addition, 28% report he is the candidate they would least support.

Source: http://bit.ly/wsovy

Should Pawlenty give up?

Tim Pawlenty has really done nothing for the Republican Party at this point. Nationally, we don't know where he stands on many issues. In a party based on principles, it takes time to build trust. Maybe he should run, but I don't think he would win in 2012.

While Tim has the benefit of not being religiously polarizing as Huckabee and to some extent Romney are, Huckabee and Romney supporters have little reason to vote for him in contrast to "their guy."  In politics, religion can be a double edged sword.

It will be Pawlenty's challenge to give Americans compelling reasons to vote for him.  Can he compete with Romney on economics?  Not likely.  Pawlenty is simply fiscally conservative, where Romney is a fiscal genius.  Can he compete today with Palin or Huckabee on social issues?  Not at all, even if he IS socially moderate to conservative.  He just hasn't got the exposure, yet...  It would take a VERY well funded campaign.

Mitt Romney is a competent leader who can lead on more than just social issues, and gets those right, too! (Great family man.)  I can tell you right now, I plan to vote for Mitt in 2012.  (I wish I could put my vote on speed dial!)  The economy is just too important in the post-Obama era.

Pres. Obama has been the equivalent of Hurricane Katrina on our economy, taxpayers, and the dollar, and America needs a specialist who not only values the economy, but knows where to start.  The job of President in managing the deficit and spending is today no longer about guiding policy.  By 2012, it will be all out open heart surgery.

I wouldn't mind Sarah Palin as President. She would be refreshing and would keep the "first woman" as President distinction out of Democrat hands. I don't think she has what it takes to inspire Independents in extraordinary numbers, however.  She should pay special attention to this group if she wants to win, but may be too rogue to care what they think.  If she can do it, God bless her!

Newt Gingrich is plain vanilla at this point and doesn't seem that interested in running, just keeping his name relevant. He might make a good VP, but that would be up to whoever wins.  There are so many good choices...  He is definitely more colorful and respected than Biden!  (Who isn't?)  At any rate, that decision is miles away.

Mike Huckabee has a problem with faith-ism, my word for the faith based equivalent of racism. Huck thinks he is right and has a tendency to use faith as a hammer. I'm not okay with that in a country that is supposed to have freedom of religion and not support one faith over another, even if you agree with one and not the other. His coalition, I believe, is largely faith-ism based.

Romney was also a volunteer minister for many years (Stake President) and even served in France as a missionary for his church, but he doesn't hit people over the head with it. Mitt Romney's faith is simply part of who he is instead of who everyone else should be.

I worry that Huckabee will be religiously divisive even in office.  While some evangelicals and liberal media sources manufacture a big deal of Mitt's faith, Mitt's philosophy about faith in government is less abrasive, more unifying, more about being an American melting pot of good intentions and ideas.  To Mitt Romney, faith in the public square is about character, both personal and national, as I believe it was for the founding fathers--NOT denominational classism or doctrine.

I really liked Mitt's speech on freedom of religion in 2008. He came across as a Republican JFK who has more in common with Bush Sr. or Reagan than Bush Jr. (No disrespect for W. I still like him, and admire his work on AIDS in Africa!  He was loved by his troops, including me.)

Huckabee is also still an issue when it comes to economics and fiscal policy.  Like John McCain, he doesn't get it.

Other than Jon Huntsman, our current ambassador to China (very distracted), the remaining person I wish were considered is former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who really has no chance because of recent "damage" to the Bush family brand.  Jeb Bush may be the smartest of our three Bushes, having benefit of hindsight on two prior Bush Presidencies.  I've never heard him speak in person, but he says a lot of the right things and would probably be more domestically focused than his brother or father.

I've watched Congressman Ron Paul, who has great ideas on auditing and possibly shutting down the Fed and going back to the Constitution.  I don't, however, agree with his foreign policy approach.  Paul is a unique voice with special insight into Taliban and Al Qaeda motives, that unfortunately, like many Democrats, does not take seriously enough the threat these groups may pose.  I have no doubt he will draw impressive support again in 2012, and am grateful for his leadership on many important issues.

So should Tim Pawlenty run?  Yes.  Should he expect to win his first time around?  Absolutely not, but any contribution he can make to Republican progress and ideas could form a platform for future victory.

And TPaw, you don't have to win to make a difference!  Campaigning itself can be a patriotic act.

Really looking forward to 2012!  (And 2010!)  Time to fix Dems' control freak problems and vote them out!

Use Twitter?  Follow me @ConsRepublicans or http://www.ConservativeRepublicans.com

 

1. Governor Romney does not want the seat long term, and this is a short term vacancy.

Reports Politico, "Former Massachusetts GOP Gov. Mitt Romney will not seek the Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy's death, a Romney spokesman said Thursday."

"Responding to speculation that Romney may be interested in the seat — which he challenged Kennedy for in 1994 — Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney’s political action committee, told POLITICO that the former one-term governor has no interest in campaigning to replace Kennedy."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26513.html#ixzz0PShRJNYg

2. In spite of being a Republican in a Democrat leaning state, Governor Romney is the second most popular politician in Massachusetts, after now deceased Kennedy. (Which makes him #1 at the moment.)

From the same Politico article:

"Despite declining to run for a second term as governor in 2006 and dwindling support in the state for his landmark universal health care policy, Romney’s poll ratings in solidly Democratic Massachusetts remain respectable."

"According to a Rasmussen Reports poll released the day before Kennedy’s death late Tuesday night, Romney rated second after the late nine-term senator as the most respected politician in the state."

"More than one-third of those surveyed, 35 percent, said they respected Romney the most among the state’s politicians. Only 5 percent said Democratic Sen. John Kerry while 3 percent chose Deval Patrick, the state’s Democratic governor. Exactly half of those surveyed said they respected Kennedy the most."

3. Governor Romney has been an elected official before, chosen by the people of Massachusetts because they believed he would represent them.

While not without critics (who is?), Romney remains far more popular than the current Governor, Deval Patrick, and for that matter, prior Governors of the State.

4. The reason Massachusetts is looking for an interim Senator is to continue to influence the health care debate.

Who better to influence that debate than Mr. (bipartisan) Health Care himself?

5. Massachusetts is concerned about the big leap backwards the loss of Kennedy will give them in credibility in the Senate.

Romney has more than a little name recognition nationally--maybe even more than Kennedy at this point--and he already knows almost everyone in the U.S. Senate and Massachusetts government personally. Romney could actually be a leap forward, especially compared to a cancer stricken Mr. Kennedy.

...

Democrats will frown over giving away a little power, but it may actually benefit them in the long run if they have a GOP ally with the clout of Romney on health care.

Finally, this may be the only real olive branch that could completely put an end to the very fair uproar (Democrat and Republican alike) over the "hypocrisy" of taking away Romney's power to select an interim Senator and giving it back to a Democrat...

For more on that, see this link:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/push-kennedy-successor-stirs-political-storm/

Thanks for reading,

@ConsRepublicans (Twitter)

http://twitter.com/consrepublicans

 

The conservative coalescence for Mitt Romney continues...for 2012.

"Suspend" is a beautiful word.  It captures a moment with the absolute intention of returning to that moment at some point in the future, and building on that moment, without the opposition that exists in the present moment.

Mitt Romney is not out of money.

He is not out of time.

He is not out of fans.

In fact, the only thing he has done is give himself four more years to build on his present success in anticipation of drawing the Republican Party even closer together in 2012.

His hair will be four years greyer, but some people age well, and a candidate who peels the skin off his KFC is sure to do just that.

Meanwhile, a disastrous conflict is averted, one that threatens to waste both candidates' money and time prior to a national campaign to stop two very well funded adversaries who could very well end up running together.

Republicans like Ann Coulter are calling for Romney to be VP.  That may or may not happen.  McCain is known to hold grudges, but that hasn't stopped the Party from embracing Mitt as a bit of a hero and almost annointing him for 2012.  Certainly our talk show hosts have done so, from Rush to Laura Ingraham to Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.  Mitt's victory in 2012 may be our best hope of sending the message that Reagan conservatism is not dead.

It is hard to argue that John McCain would have even had a chance in this race, had he not run unsuccessfully in 2000 and built a rabid fanbase and organization in New Hampshire that was willing to put him over the top again in 2008.

There is an age old question that asks, "What happens when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?"

Mitt Romney and John McCain are two very large ships with valuable cargo seeking passage through a very narrow canal.  (I see Huckabee as a little tugboat, helping pull McCain through the channel and clear the way.)

How does one reconcile this difference?  Both are on the same time schedule.

Well, one of the two captains simply has to have the honor to change his time schedule.  Romney is that Captain.  He has made way for McCain, allowing both ships to pass through the same space, just at different times.

Now some of us suspect that McCain's cargo is less valuable than Romney's, but that is not what Romney says.  Romney agrees that the contents of McCain's ship are of great value, namely making sure we don't withdraw from the war on (from?) terror without a victory.  This does nothing to reduce the value or importance of what is on Romney's ship, namely a better domestic economy and global viability, health care, and a balanced budget.

Crisis averted.  Problem (probably) solved.

Annointing Romney for 2012 also solves another Republican problem--how to maintain a long term conservative course in spite of a short term misdirection, whether that misdirection comes at the hands of a moderate Republican or a pair of Democrats.

I look forward to continuing my support for Romney in 2012!



Jed Merrill
ConservativeRepublicans.com
BloggingForAmerica.com

I'd like to take a moment to compare two men, one Governor Romney of Massachusetts, the other Governor Crist of Florida.

Not two weeks ago, Governor Crist sold out his State (Florida) and his Nation's economy in hopes of getting a cabinet position.  That precise deal may or may not be the case, but he had to know his State was in trouble economically and that his friend John McCain was in no way qualified to save it.  Crist saw a chance to be a kingmaker, and he took it, in hopes of reaping some reward.  (Romney was up 6% over McCain in Florida, hours before the endorsement.)

Now, today, we see Governor Romney lay down his hard fought campaign, which despite its uphill nature would give him a decent shot at a brokered deal at the Convention later this year, had he continued.

Mitt was the one hope of Reagan conservatives, those who value social, economic, and national defense conservatism, and earned the passionate endorsements of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, Paul Weyrich (National Right to Life), and silently, to some degree, the hope of James Dobson (Focus on the Family.)

As of last week, Mitt was favored to win Texas, and he had enough money coming in to move on to the Convention without spending another dime of his own money.

Why, then, did he make this sacrifice?

Because Mitt loves America.  Because Mitt values victory in the war, meaning the success of the Republican Party over the anti-war Democrats first, more than the cause he poured $30 to $50 million of his own money and a year of his family's life into; a cause for which he has served his entire political career to date without pay, and for which his entire life since seeing his father run has in some way been about preparing for.

Were his advisors telling him to quit?  Not in the least.  Some cried when he made the announcement, and the conservatives gathered at CPAC, and me when I read about it the minute the first article hit the web, were shocked, stunned, even dismayed.

Does Mitt believe John McCain is the man to do the job?

I think if he did, Mitt would not have been running all this time.  But he also recognized that conservatism is not a one man job.  We can only bring change and remain a power for good when we unite, and in the name of both peace and unity (two virtues some have questioned his allegience to), and also in the spirit of conservatism, Mitt Romney passed on his mantle to none other than the not so conservative John McCain, who looked none too uncomfortable wearing the responsibility in his speech to the same audience not long after.

WIll other conservatives follow Mitt's example?  Some of us.  Not me, maybe, but I admire the heck out of Mitt for doing it.  I gave my word that I would vote for Hillary if McCain won the nomination, and it looks like I will have to follow through.  (If Obama doesn't kick her butt.)  But I can support unity, if McCain picks the right VP and takes his job seriously.

I doubt McCain will, but let him prove me wrong.

The question now is if McCain will take his inspiration from those who sacrifice their State for power, like Crist, or those who sacrifice their power for their State, like Romney.

God bless Mitt Romney for his service and for his sacrifice, and I hope to hear more speeches and see more success from this great American in 2012!

Click here to read the full text of the speech.



Jed Merrill
ConservativeRepublicans.com

http://www.conservativerepublicans.com/

Imagine this:  Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and selects Barrack Obama as her VP in a bid to unite the Democratic Party behind one ticket.

John McCain picks Rudy Giuliani to cement his ticket's role as the strongest on national defense.  In the meanwhile, he manages to alienate the social and economic conservatives who so far have given him a vote of no confidence, and many of whom, while for the objectives of the War on Terror, are against staying in Iraq for 100 years.

Given these trends, what kind of show do we have on election day in November?  110% of the Democratic party shows up, while maybe 30% of the Republican party does.  (60% if McCain makes some serious compromises on his way to office.)  The rest of the party stays home, disheartened and unrepresented.

Who wins?

Now suppose McCain picks Huckabee as his VP.  A political alliance made in Heaven?  Hardly.  Subjugating the Christian and conservative right to a moderate is hardly going to come across as a consistent or reliable ticket, and economic conservatives will be even more frightened.  Combine big spending Huckabee with "I said I don't understand the economy" McCain and then throw in the possible economic recession and things go haywire--not just in the United States but worldwide.

So what if McCain picks Romney as his VP?  Romney gets the economy--its in his DNA, he says--but has already said he doesn't want to work for McCain.  I wouldn't either if I had the qualifications to be Dean of Harvard and my boss basically blew off West Point.  Even so, this is McCain's best shot at uniting the Party.

A stronger ticket would put Romney in the lead.  Who the VP would be is a tough choice.  McCain is too unpredictable to trust with the #2 seat.  "Undependable," if you ask Rick Santorum, who just signed on with and is touring with Romney.  McCain would help bring in the moderate crowd, a small notch in his favor.

A Romney-Huckabee ticket would help unite the social conservative vote, which until now has been divided, slightly favoring Romney.  (Romney has won the Evangelical vote in five of eight states to date.)  Huckabee doesn't seem to have much love for Romney, but that is his problem.  Romney can bring in any of 100 other conservatives to fill Huck's shoes, Santorum included.  It would just be a symbolic win to use Huckabee, and would put the Evangelical bigotry issue to bed.

A Romney-Giuliani ticket would draw some criticism from the right, but my friends in California love the idea.  Giuliani would bolster Romney's stance on defense, while Romney would carry the economic and socially conservative voter.

What about Romney-Thompson?  I came to respect Thompson during this race, but the energy issue seems like a big disconnect.  Romney is the picture of industry, and can hardly stop working.  He would be labeled a workaholic if he were not also so devoted to his family.  Thompson has strong, right wing opinions but seems to have envisioned being swept to the nomination by a wave of popular support instead of hard work.  I think a Romney-Thompson ticket, while buttressing the social conservative agenda (a noble aspiration to be sure), would send a mixed message to Wall Street.  What happens to our investments if, in spite of his healthy eating and fitness practices, Romney kicks the bucket?  I can't help but imagine the economy collapsing in a pile of Zzzzzzzzzzz's.

Maybe I am imagining things, but the President, in my mind, has the ability to set the pace for America.  We can't afford the prospect of a couch potato taking top seat.

Who's next?  Mitt Romney-Ron Paul.  This ticket would get some stares, but could get us a boost in fundraising and the grassroots come November.  I don't think most conservatives salivate at the thought of the Republ\can Party taking on a Libertarian slant, but I could keep an open mind on this one.  Biggest problem is Paul has very few electoral votes at this point, in spite of a second place finish in Nevada and a near second place in Maine.  Would the Ron Paul rEVOLution be willing to take the passenger seat?  Lots of "energy" here.

Now supposing that Romney is the nominee, what will that mean for us in November?

1. The Republican Party has a truly qualified (and well funded) executive to float against the Democratic ticket.

2. That same executive is also an economic, social, and national defense conservative who actually has a prayer of uniting the House of Reagan.  While he appears to have been the first choice of only 20% of Republicans in a seven person race, he was nearly everyone's second choice, including backers of Tancredo (who endorsed Romney), Thompson, Giuliani, and even Huckabee.

3. We will have a distinctly conservative voice to represent us in November.  (McCain is already drowning that voice, to what consequence?)

4. The economy should immediately start to pick up a little steam.  McCain has never led a company, let alone a country or a State.  For that matter, Obama and Clinton are a little weak in these areas, too.  Romney has led over 200 companies, the Olympics, and a State, all with flourishing success.  (For those who say he didn't do the job in Massachusetts, why is Romney getting over 50% of the vote there?  MA was in a pit of despair when he took office, and is well on its way to climbing out!)

5. Internationally, Romney will build on his Olympic success in creating good will around the world.  In contrast, McCain has promised us "more wars" according to the Huffington Post.  Not sure what McCain was thinking when he said that.  It is very possible that McCain's notoriety from straight talk comes from his inability to shut his mouth, let alone tame his temper.

Here's a link to the Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/mccain-warns-there-will_n_83459.html

6. We will have our first Republican candidate in decades who is rich enough not to be beholden to special interests.  His personal wealth is about 1,000 times what Michael Moore suggests the drug companies pay out to "buy" Congressional supporters.  If that doesn't persuade you, he is also rumored to not want a salary, something we haven't seen since George Washington.  Mitt turned down salaries for his role in the Olympics and as Governor of Massachusetts.

In the end, I have to conclude that Romney is infinitely more electable (not to mention worthy of election) than McCain.  McCain has the advantage of being willing to get dirty and make questionable political deals, while Romney has the advantage of putting his money where his mouth is.  But when it comes to the ability to represent Republican conservative values, and to hold a candle to this year's Democrat crop, only one candidate stands a chance, and that is Mitt.