Showing 23 posts tagged 2012

High-res Latest poll from Rasmussen finds more evidence that conservative activists are not pleased with the Republican party: More Americans would vote for a “Tea Party” candidate than a Republican, according to a Rasmussen poll released Monday that quizzed voters on a hypothetical three-way ballot. Respondents were asked to assume that the “Tea Party” was an organized new party, despite the fact that it is highly unlikely the grassroots conservative movement that has gained momentum this year will become a third party. continue reading… reason

Latest poll from Rasmussen finds more evidence that conservative activists are not pleased with the Republican party:

More Americans would vote for a “Tea Party” candidate than a Republican, according to a Rasmussen poll released Monday that quizzed voters on a hypothetical three-way ballot. Respondents were asked to assume that the “Tea Party” was an organized new party, despite the fact that it is highly unlikely the grassroots conservative movement that has gained momentum this year will become a third party.

continue reading… reason

newsweek: Romano’s 2012 watch, Mitt Romney edition: The problem with Romney’s current silence on Afghanistan is that it diminishes rather than enhances the “adult” image he clearly hopes to convey. Since Obama took office in January, Romney has focused most of his fire on foreign affairs, taking the president to task on Iran and Israel as well as Afghanistan (in part, one imagines, because health care isn’t a winner for him). He wants to seem Reaganesque, a brawny advocate for American exceptionalism. But you can’t hope to maintain that image by suddenly ducking out at “the defining [foreign-policy] moment of the Obama presidency.” It just looks wimpy. I mean, I can guess what Romney is up to here. He’s angling, as most politicians do, for maximum maneuverability: the freedom as 2012 approaches to say (a) “I told you so” if we “win” in Afghanistan or (b) “You should’ve done X” if we don’t. But given that Romney was so critical of Obama for taking his time to plot a new course for the war-torn country, it’s rather ironic that he can’t bring himself to settle on something that seems vanishingly small in comparison: a response, positive or negative, to the president’s actual policy.

newsweek:

Romano’s 2012 watch, Mitt Romney edition:

The problem with Romney’s current silence on Afghanistan is that it diminishes rather than enhances the “adult” image he clearly hopes to convey. Since Obama took office in January, Romney has focused most of his fire on foreign affairs, taking the president to task on Iran and Israel as well as Afghanistan (in part, one imagines, because health care isn’t a winner for him). He wants to seem Reaganesque, a brawny advocate for American exceptionalism. But you can’t hope to maintain that image by suddenly ducking out at “the defining [foreign-policy] moment of the Obama presidency.” It just looks wimpy.

I mean, I can guess what Romney is up to here. He’s angling, as most politicians do, for maximum maneuverability: the freedom as 2012 approaches to say (a) “I told you so” if we “win” in Afghanistan or (b) “You should’ve done X” if we don’t. But given that Romney was so critical of Obama for taking his time to plot a new course for the war-torn country, it’s rather ironic that he can’t bring himself to settle on something that seems vanishingly small in comparison: a response, positive or negative, to the president’s actual policy.

“

“I addressed her as ‘President Palin,’ ” said Debbie McMillan of Orlando. “She said, ‘I like that very much — I could live with that.’” […]

Sheila Schulte, 54, a resident of The Villages who was wearing a button on a red, white and blue scarf that read “Sarah Palin for President 2012,” leaned over and thanked Palin for serving as a great inspiration.

Palin responded, “You’re welcome and I like your pin.”

”

Sarah Palin sharing her hopes of getting trounced by Pres. Obama in 2012

thinkprogress

“[A]s things stand, [Palin is] a threat to win the GOP nomination but an almost certain loser in the general election unless economic conditions have deteriorated to the point where any Republican would be a threat to knock off Obama. But if any Republican would stand a good chance of winning, why would the GOP nominate the one Republican who would galvanize the Democrats in opposition? The more beatable Obama looks, the greater the temptation will be to nominate an inoffensive “electable” candidate like Romney and make the election a referendum on The One’s record; the less beatable Obama looks, the greater the temptation to roll the dice and nominate a lightning rod like Palin who can draw media attention away from Obama.”

ALLAHPUNDIT

via The Daily Dish via Hot Air

“Sarah Palin’s candidacy would be “catastrophic”

Former McCain Campaign Manager on Nominating Palin In 2012 TPM

“Most politicians of prominence write a book. My honest view is that she would not be a winning candidate for president and if she was the results would be…catastrophic. It’s fairly inconceivable she could be elected.” - Steve Schmidt