Your logic in dismissing Governors Palin and Jindal for a POTUS run in 2012 because they have to run for reelection in two years. In 1998 George W. Bush ran for reelection as Governor of Texas. Two years later he ran and won the Presidential contest in 2000. Two years is plenty of time to prepare and begin to raise awareness and funds.

Personally, I think speculation about who will run or who should run is ridiculous right now. Four years ago who had Obama tapped as the choice for Democrats? In 1996, who had Bush tapped as the choice for Republicans? Did anyone really know who Clinton was in 1988?

I’m not saying that Romney wouldn’t be a likely choice, I’m just saying that recent history shows that the choices will emerge in two or three years.

Given his popularity in LA, he is likely to win easily so I doubt that is reason that he would not run for President. That holds true for Palin to, even if both decided not to run in 2012, I doubt Romney would be a shoo-in for the nomination. As one of the second tier governors (Crist, Daniels, Huntsman, Sanford or Pawlenty) or some conservative congress critters would give him a run.

Romney spent more money then anyone on our side and still lost. This claim that he has a superior political organization doesnt really sound believable when you simply go back and look at the history of the primaries. His money advantage helped him out nada, which means his deficiencies as a candidate outwayed the advantages of money.

The guy looks and sounds like the definition of a politician. The whole abortion thing makes him look like a guy who will change positions on what some consider a pretty black/white position.

Instead, why dont the Romneybots try to convince the guy and his guys that Romney is better served as money raiser, an idea guy, a strong voice in the party (which if the rumors that Romneys boys are responsible for those anonymous quotes makes him not such a strong voice) but leave it at that.

Huckabee He may be successful as a TV/Radio personality, he was, after all, a radio host before he was a pastor before he was the AR version of Huey P. Long. He will never be a political candidate or a political force and he will never (and never has been) a spokesman for anything “conservative”.

Gov. Palin She’s got plenty of time to raise whatever money she needs, and the Governor’s race in AK shouldn’t be a problem, assuming she maintains anywhere near her current popularity. BTW, if Stevens gets tossed either in the current vote count or resigns and there is a new election, his likely successor is Begach (sp?) who ran against Gov. Palin last time and got pounded. I don’t believe there is any other strong competition, but Art Chance would be the better source on that note. Bottom line, if she wants to run there is nothing holding her back.

Jindal See Palin.

The Various Unknowns Are currently unknown and a candidate could conceivably come from that pack.

Gingrich Toast. Too much baggage. He had his shot at fixing DC and got infected with stupid. He’s a good idea guy and there are plenty of places where he can serve the Party and the country, but the top of the Republican ticket ain’t one of ‘em.

Romney Mitt got creamed last time out. If he can’t find a realistic way to convince the base that he’s a real live conservative and that he’s really committed to pro-life principles he’s got the same chance as Huckabee. None.

By 2012, both Governors Palin and Jindal will have been reelected, and likely by huge margins, which will be a huge selling point over Gov. Romney who was so far behind by the end of his first term he would have likely been the victim of a double digit loss even after governing as a non-conservative in his first term. In fairness, he was Governor of MA and I’m not sure anybody could have done better. He should run for Governor of MI. Fix MI and he’s a run-away top tier candidate in 2016.

In addition to being reelected, both governors should have significant resumes of real accomplishment they can point to where Gov. Romney has a relatively thin resume in comparison. I would make the same case against Governors Pawlenty or Sanford. I don’t their accomplishments will stand up to Palin or Jindal but they would dwarf Romney.

Who’s it gonna be? No clue. But it won’t be anybody who ran for President this year.

By 2012, Obama’s going to have 4 years of presidential experience to campaign from. If you throw Romney or Huckabee in there, they’d be running on experience they had a decade ago. If Romney wants another shot, then I agree that he should run for MI governor (and likely win against an unpopular Dem governor), fix it up and run on that.

As for Palin and Jindal, I agree that there are no impediments to them running. Either one would command a significant following. But this is a decision both should not take lightly. A defeat in the general election would likely kill Palin’s career, and would damage Jindal’s. Although I like them both as candidates, I feel Jindal’s got the edge since he is not tainted by any associations to Bush or McCain. He is Oxford educated and could easily take on Obama in a debate. Palin has some work to do rehabilitating her image.

I think it’s a safe prediction to say that either Palin or Jindal will be on the next ticket.

Romney had his time in the sunshine and couldn’t close the deal against McCain…why would we want him in 2012?

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Too many people spend too much time trying to decide who runs for the next time rather than working toward the conservative message that all seem to be so concerned about, yet, spend little time on it.

Why not work on that message and insist upon a conservative leader or none? If we do that, perhaps then we’ll have a chance at getting something better than slightly right liberalism… which is anything but liberal.

If we do that, then the ones we both need and are looking for will rise to the top. Just because Romney looks good and has a lot of money doesn’t make him ideal or even close to what we want out of a conservative leader. In this day and age it really doesn’t take two years to get the message out provided you’ve got a message to start with. None of them did and it showed.

I honestly have to say that I think Sanford has the best spot right now. His second and current term ends in 2010, the perfect time to start a presidential run. He gets it, and will be hugely popular among Conservatives just like Obama was among liberals. Very few knew who Obama was four years ago, so his relative unknowness won’t be a big factor.

Palin and Jindal will have their time in the future but I don’t think it will be in 12. Huckabee has all but taken himself out. He’s a media man and not in a position to make a run. Romney just doesn’t seem to have what it takes to get nominated.

And please God, not Pawlenty. He is the biggest greenie there is and sucks up to the teachers union like no other. If you thought McCain was a pseudo-republican, you will really not want Pawlenty as your nominee. Trust me, he’s been governor of my state for the last six years or so and he is the farthest thing you can be from a conservative and still call yourself a repub. And I’ve heard Christ is very similar.

I would really like Newt, but like others have said, he just won’t have a chance. I would love to have him run, I just don’t think he as any chance of getting elected.

That leaves Sanford. I think he will be best for the job. Throw Jindal in as VP and I think we’ve got a very conservative, winnable ticket. Still, 2012 is four years away and a lot can happen in that time. I think we should just concentrate on 2010.

1) I think speculating on 2012 now is absurd. We need to focus on rebuilding our brand now, or who we put up in 12 won’t matter.

2) Romney doesn’t interest anyone outside the NE. And by 12 he’s been a decade with nothing attached to his name but his money. He has not convinced anyone but the NRO set of his conservative credentials. And I’m not sure running for Gov. of MI would help, because it makes him look like a carpetbagger.

3) Discounting Palin and Jindal makes no sense. If they do not destroy their popularity in their home states, they will have little difficulty being re-elected. Jindal might have to work a little harder due to the system in his state.

Palin has no serious opposition if she doesn’t shoot herself in the foot. She’ll have a massive warchest, and the rank and file love her, so the grassroots will be on her side. The Senate seat makes no sense for her. She ought to stay in the Gov’s mansion where she can be “the” voice instead of 1 in 100.

4) Most of the other names you mentioned have either too much baggage (Newt) or will be out of the loop (Huck) by 12. I’m almost convinced at this point that the best nominee for 12 is someone not on our radar right now. And that is to say; “I don’t know either.” After all, Obama came from essentially nowhere.

If he succeeds, then he has a chance for 2012.

It’s hard to root for someone who doesn’t have any constituent already.

I can’t help but comment on the premise that “Republicans have a history of nominating the 2nd place finisher in the previous primary season.” That isn’t really accurate. I think it is more accurate that the Republican party does not normally nominate unknown candidates. I think George W. Bush is the exception, but Rockefeller did not get the nomination in 1968, Reagan did not get the nomination in 1976, and Buchanan did not get the nomination in 1996 or 2000.

I certainly think Palin is the front-runner for the nomination right now. I also do not see any reason for Jindal to run for the nomination in 2012. He is very young and he has not accomplished very much at this point. Even if Palin were to prevail in 2012 and win re-election in 2016. Jindal would only be 49 in 2020. I don’t believe Louisiana has term limits so he has no reason to give up the governor’s mansion, but if he does he can run for Senate or get some position in Palin’s second administration (lol). He has plenty of time to build a solid resume. He is in his first year as governor two terms would take him to 2015.

If she wants, Palin has a pretty clean run at the nomination for four reason. Reason number one, right now she is a known quantity and the base of the party is very happy with her. Reason number two there is no establishment candidate waiting in the wings. Dan Qualye, Dick Cheney and Patrick Buchanan are not going to run against her, and neither is Fred Thompson. Romney is not an establishment candidate he is an also ran. Reason number three, there is no acceptable inside Washington candidate after the spending orgy of congress and President Bush. Reason number four, young Republican Governors do not need to run against Palin, because she is going to need to choose an older VP who has national security or Washington experience. Young governors will be safe to wait and see if she fails, because her failure leaves them with an open run in 2016.

I’m not suggesting she will not be challenged I just do see any one prevailing. Any run against her will likely be someone testing the waters. The only ones that are going to stop Palin’s run to the nomination is Palin or the Lord. She is likely to keep having success with energy policy in Alaska and using that as her springboard to the nomination, much as previous Governors have used education reform on their way to the Presidency.

Palin can decide to run in 2012 no matter how President Obama looks. Other candidates might rather wait to see whether President Obama is strong or weak. Palin needs to run in 2012 to capitalize on her popularity, this gives her a head start. Since she needs to run in 2012, she can start to fundraise early and she can collect chits by helping the party and other candidates to fundraise.

Regarding 2010, while I do not know much about Alaskan politics I don’t imagine a party that could not prevail against a weakened Stevens or Young is likely to prevail against Palin. If they squeak out a win against Stevens it wont change my view, because the election took place after the verdict. If the democratic party were strong, the race would not have been close.

Palin is a genious and she will only get smarter in the coming years. Saying that though, I think she should wait until atleast 2016 to have another run. Sanford on the other hand, should run in 2012 with Jindal on the ticket. Then Palin should follow. I love Palin and she will be a great leader of our country someday, but I think it would be a mistake to have her run right away in 2012 because she is (unfairly) not percieved very well by a large chunk of the population and a loss then would be detrimental to her career.

To all of you who may be Bobby Jindal supporters:

We have created a Facebook group designed to encourage and support Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal to run for President.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21914331069&ref=ts

We are now approaching 2,000 members. We are attempting to form as large a membership as possible in order to form the basis of a grassroots organization in support of Gov. Jindal. As our membership increases we will be suggesting concrete measures which you can personally do to help Jindal get the GOP nomination.

Obama won in Iowa because he out-organized everyone else. If we work together we can do the same in the summer of 2011. There is strength in numbers – please consider joining.

I think you have to look at where the Obama Presidency stands in 2.5 years to determine who is likely to win. If Obama turns out to be a strong / popular leader, then you won’t see many of these people run. You’ll get the 2nd tier 1996 crowd all over again, which honestly really never posed that serious a challenge to Clinton. I think your true heavyweights, Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford may sit it out and wait for 2016, where there will be no incumbent to run against. If the economy is still weak in a few years, then you may see one of the Governors come up and give it a good run. If the economy recovers, but there are foreign policy issues, then you may see a strong foreign policy mind come out.

I’m a little bit of a troll here, being a Liberal Democrat who like talking to Conservative, but let me give you my list of who scares me out of your choices.

Jindal – He will keep me up at night. I don’t agree with him any issues, but he’s strong on his issues, and has a great backstory and is accomplished. He’s your best bet. Left will scream about that stupid exercising a demon story, but it won’t matter. Not 100% some people will vote for an Indian man, but don’t think that will matter either. Jindal v. Obama would be a great race.

Sanford / Barbour – A strong, safe choices. Good Conservatives, both a little vanilla. But, you want your typical white conservative Southern man, you got them here. They may cancel each other out. Sanford is stronger candidate in my opinion.

Romney – Not a good choice. Doesn’t come across as having any real convictions to me. Appears like an opportunist. Flip flop on abortion makes him looks silly. If he didn’t win last year in a relatively weak field, will be crushed by an up and comer.

Huckabee – I like him as a person a lot and has some cross over appeal. I just don’t see the economic conservatives going with him. He’ll have funding issues again if he runs. Also, his base will be eaten away by Sanford or Jindal if they run.

Pawlenty – Just too boring. He’s your equivilant to our Evan Bayh. Not gonna energize a light bulb.

Palin – PLEASE NOMINATE HER. I know she plays well with your base, but if you have to try to convince people you aren’t an idiot, you are in bad shape. I don’t think she’s as dumb as people make her out to be, but she did come across as ill-prepared. It’s going to be hard to get rid of that image, especially with McCain staffers reinforcing it. She has little cross-over appeal to moderates, who you do need to win a general election. Comes across less as a conservative than as an idiologue. Won’t really matter, unless she works her but off to get the issues down, Romney and Jindal will eat her alive in the debates.
Nominating her would be like the left nominating Howard Dean.

That’s my take on your race. You run Jindal/Thune (national security experience, which you will need with almost of the candidates) in 2012, you got a power ticket.

I think Gov Pawlenty will win the republican nomination in 2012. He is a two term governor from Minnesota a blue state. He is considered to be more moderate than some of the other governors. Also the cable news shows do not hate him or feel threatened by him the way they do Palin. There is an anti-southern bias in the media that is very strong. The cable talk shows are constantly referring to the republican party as a rural small town party. Gov Palin fits the stereotype that the media sees. I think the other Republican governors will be labeled as too conservative and unacceptable and republican voters who seem to follow what the media suggests will look for a more modern moderate type of candidate. Also one last thought, Gov Palin has been vetted by the national press, none of the other candidates have yet to be. There are already anti-Jindal blogs springing up. Trust me these Governors are about to find out what Sarah Palin went through for the last three months.

at some point you just have to admit, he’s not viable nationally. For whatever reason — he comes across as fake, he’s flip-flopped royally in the youtube age, whatever — he simply doesn’t connect with people. Actually, “doesn’t connect” is too tame — he turns people off. I don’t think the Mormon issue had much to do with that, by the way.

I love Palin, but I’m not sure she can recover from the last 3 months. Do people see her as merely “not yet ready”? If so, she’ll be back. Or do they think more conclusively that she’s a wacko, or a dummy? If so, she’ll have a hard time recovering from that.

Palin, Jindal, Pawlenty, Sanford, Paul Ryan, perhaps a few others — I’ll be watching all of them with interest in the coming months and years.