You support Mitt Romney despite Romneycare being the state version of Obamacare and despite the fact that he wasn’t really pro-life when he ran for Senate in Massachussetts. Romney’s pro-life inclinations happened to kick in when he runs for the Presidential nomination. Why don’t the sentences uttered by Romney in his Senate race bother you? Does the fact that those sentences changed over time seem a bit opportunistic to you at all?

You dislike Daniels despite the fact that he has never been anything but pro-life, because he uttered a sentence about policy priorities.

Daniels has a far stronger pro-life record (i.e. he has consistently uttered pro-life sentences) than Romney, but to you he is weaker because of the utterance of a single sentence. Romney in contrast has shown that he is willing to utter all sorts of sentences in the course his career that are hard to reconcile to other sentences that he also uttered. Do you remember the sentences that the fiscally conservative Romney uttered in Michigan in an attempt to win Michigan voters?

If pro-life is your primary issue, Romney should be last on your list. Not saying Daniels should be first (he shouldn’t), but Romney has proven that he is willing to utter sentences to please his audience.

The culture war is fought primarily in federal courts and state legislatures. No President can make the cultural wars his or top priority.

are reading Mitch’s statement wrong. While inadvised, it was essentially a statement that we should avoid allowing social issues to divide a unified constituency dedicated to cutting government: a real problem, considering the number of social issue single issue groups out there. In context, it was more of a word of advice to party leaders to prioritize than a “bitter clinger” homily ala Obama. Given that Mitch is a “bitter clinger” in word and deed, both in office and out, it would be bizarre if his statement was meant to attack social conservatives.

Have a great one!

Have a great one!

I forgot to mention Newt. On Fox, he’s been able to articulate the case against Obama’s policies. Yes, Newt is a retread, but he did manage the GOP takeover of the House in 1994.

Currently, Newt is working with Steele and Bohener on a new Contract With America.

Perhaps, 1994 retreads like Hale Barbour and Newt Gingrich are what we need?

“She’s a white, female version of Obama.”

Obama has actually been successful accomplishing his radical left agenda. He would have steamrolled it all right through, if the healthcare bill debate hadn’t been sidetracked by all this talk of “death panels.” The problem with Obama is not his experience (he has Chicago machine politics down, which are little help outside the Beltway), but his ideology which is the wrong direction for this country.

Palin would not have accomplished anything had she finished her term. The Democrats perceive her as a threat, otherwise they would not have deployed a team of lawyers to go to Alaska, dig through her trash and incite bloggers to file multiple frivolous ethics charges. She ran a good budget, she negotiated AGIA and took out entrenched corruption that had existed in Alaska since its founding. Her Lt. Gov. has followed her plans to the letter, and her being away allows her state to function, perversely.

But let’s compare Palin’s business experience with Romney’s. Palin has negotiated new tax structures, lease deals and other issues that arise in the Alaska energy industry. It is also important to remember that the Alaska oil industry is the dominant force in the Alaskan economy. Imagine if she had been President during the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Romney has business experience from his time at Bain Capital. However, Romney’s greatest accomplishment from his time as Governor of MA is RomneyCare. RomneyCare is effectively government mandated health care, which the Wall Street Journal has claimed has caused a crisis in the Bay State. The Journal also portrays RomneyCare as a warning against nationalized health care. Being a Wall Street powerhouse and running a venture capital business is not the same as running a government. (As a NYC resident, I can assure you Bloomberg ain’t all that.) Romney often claims that the state legislature twisted his original health-care proposal and that this has led to the problems facing MA. It seems that Romney’s experience in dealing with a board of directors and shareholders at Bain Capital were little help to him in dealing with the group of politicians known as the Massachusetts legislature.

But I know Palin’s resignation is a legitimate concern for voters, and I don’t know how her campaign will go, assuming she runs. That’s what the primaries are for, and the voters will hear everyone and make up their own minds. She’s not as bad as a lot of grumpy old white men would have you think, but we haven’t seen other candidates, either. There is a good chance the GOP won’t run their best until 2016. I haven’t seen many Republicans seriously challenging Obama; I do hear occasional suggestions of “repeal and replace” and some other half-ass suggestions; I cringe when I see the Young Guns ads before the midterms, and these other gimmicky pitches. The GOP seems pretty complacent.

Finaljeopardy makes the case well. The only thing I would change is to say that Obama’s handlers, more so than Obama himself, have been successful in implementing the Far Left agenda, but that would just be nitpicking.

As to the essence of their persons, Palin is the antithesis of the irritable, buck-passing Obama.

You left my dead white cat off your list.

Maybe he could run successfully for the presidency, though he sounds like he is committed to staying in NJ and seeing it out. But his endorsement of Mike Castle (I’m fine with it, but fire-breathing conservatives seem indignant), his statements on amnesty and the GZM — I think he’s moderate, to say the least. We also have not seen the results of the impressive work he has undertaken. States are the test labs for the nation, and if he is successful in NJ, he makes a good case for the conservative cause. I would prefer to see him carry that out.

Jindal — good luck with that.

Pawlenty — two words. Al Franken. Okay, three. Senator Al Franken.

Daniels — I discussed him upthread.

Perry — I’ll let someone from TX comment.

I think you underestimate Mrs. Palin, not only in experience, but in intelligence and courage. I am among many who are just exercising common sense in waiting to hear from all candidates, but who will have no problem voting for Palin in the general election if she makes it there. Judging by the lack of enthusiasm for other potential candidates, she is right to be preparing.

My point was that since Ace’s statement about the term “Electable” rings true, should we interpret “Unelectable” by the same logic?

I predict that after Nov. 2, the tag “Unelectable” will be the coveted, new ticket to victory for “otherwise” credible Republicans at all levels. Palin will be able to soar to victory in 2012 by saying, “I was ‘unelectable’ before it was cool.”

Maybe other Republicans should start scrambling to become “unelectable” while some risk still adheres to the label…