Showing posts with label Republicans In Name Only. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans In Name Only. Show all posts

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Is Romney poised for a comeback?

IsRomneypoisedforacomeback? posted

Is Romney poised for a comeback?

posted at 8:41 pm on July 31, 2014 by Allahpundit

I’m pretty sure the answer was, is, and will remain “no,” but if it’s a day ending in “y,” I’m willing to troll you guys by revisiting the subject. Matt Lewis makes the case:

Romney would similarly have to get real. No more phoniness. No more telling us what he thinks we want to hear. He would have to be utterly authentic, and he would have to show that losing caused him to encounter pain and reflection. (The good news is that the Netflix film, Mitt, already helped show this side of Romney.)…

People like comebacks. We can identify with the guy or gal who is struggling to redeem themselves (and nobody has ever identified with Mitt Romney before).

Ironically, Romney is almost tailor made to benefit from having lost before. What might be a devastating blow to most political figures — a blight on their resume — actually transforms Romney into a more compelling candidate. Having struggled and stumbled is, for Romney, at least, a feature, not a bug. The same could be said for Hillary Clinton, who only became a compelling candidate in 2008 when she lost her frontrunner status…

[Pat] Buchanan, whose sister was a Romney advisor, believes that Romney should take a page from the Nixon handbook. Having lost to Kennedy in 1960, and then having lost the 1962 gubernatorial election in California, Nixon was assumed politically dead. But he was revived by working hard for other candidates — he worked hard for conservative Barry Goldwater in 1964, and backed liberal Republican Nelson Rockefeller’s candidacy in New York — just to name two of the many GOPers he hit the hustings for between 1962 and 1968.

Let me see if I can talk myself into this. Point one: Romney’s just seven months older than Hillary Clinton and has always seemed fit, energetic, and younger than his years. He’d be the same age as Reagan was on election day 1980. He’s not too old.

Point two: The big takeaway from the past six months of Republican primaries is that business interests are willing to spend big bucks to squash tea partiers before they can get traction. They’re tired of watching conservatives shutting down the economy and flirting with hitting the debt ceiling. They want someone sympathetic to them as nominee. There’s no one more sympathetic than Mitt.

Point three: Arguably, despite his record as a presidential loser, Romney’s still the most likable RINO on the Republican 2016. Ask yourself — if you had to choose between Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Mitt Romney, which one would you prefer? One guy has heavy baggage from his last name and will give away the farm on immigration; the second guy is boorish, has an anti-gun record (for which he’s lately tried to make amends), and smells of scandal. The third guy is Romney. QED.

Point four: Although it’s true that presidential losers are typically disqualified from future runs nowadays, Romney’s unusual in that he has a laundry list of told-ya-so’s he could run on a second time. The campaign commercials write themselves: First comes the clip of him saying something prescient about Russia or ObamaCare in 2012, then come the headlines from 2013-14 bearing him out, then comes the 2016 pitch (“a man of vision” or whatever). That sort of thing could, I guess, move perceptions of his candidacy from also-ran dismissal to “yeah, maybe we should have listened to this guy.”

Honestly, if he hadn’t run in 2008 and flamed out in the primaries, I think he’d be thinking seriously about it now. The main bar to another Romney run isn’t that he lost in 2012, I suspect, it’s that this would be three campaigns in eight years. A second bite at the apple doesn’t seem crazy; a third bite at the apple does, kind of. (And exhausting!) And if he did run, he’d (once again) be poorly suited to repel Democratic class-warfare attacks. Rubio, Ryan, and Mike Lee are building agendas aimed at the working class in hopes of siphoning off support from one of the Democrats’ core constituencies. A party that’s doing that doesn’t want to go into battle behind Mr. “47 Percent,” especially when Hillary will have no choice but to adopt Warren-esque populism for her own campaign, to appease progressives. How does Romney, who worked hard to undo his image as a centrist in 2008, then worked hard to undo his image as a social conservative in 2012, undo his image as a country-club Republican who sees the world in terms of “makers” and “takers”? And how does he improve with Latinos, who broke for Obama in a landslide because of his “self-deportation” comments?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, April 28, 2014

More Rand Paul: I wholeheartedly endorse Susan Collins for reelection in Maine

MoreRandPaul:IwholeheartedlyendorseSusanCollins

More Rand Paul: I wholeheartedly endorse Susan Collins for reelection in Maine

posted at 8:01 pm on April 28, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Dan Riehl, people are going nuts over this in the Headlines thread but I don’t know why. He’s not endorsing her over some tea-party primary opponent. She has no primary opponent. He’s endorsing her over the Democrat in the race, Shenna Bellows (whose civil-libertarian cred from working at the ACLU evidently gave Paul no pause).

Even Jim DeMint, who once said he’d rather have 30 principled conservatives in the Senate than a 60-seat majority of RINOs, saw fit to endorse Scott Brown on the eve of his big special election upset in 2010. If Rand can hold an extra Senate seat for the GOP in 2014 by nudging Maine tea partiers to pull the lever for Collins, what’s the harm?

Q: You’re going to join U.S. Sen. Susan Collins for a state party fundraiser today. She’s defended National Security Agency spying programs you oppose, and she’s also running against a Democrat, Shenna Bellows, who comes pretty close to sharing your views on that and other privacy issues. Do you support her, despite disagreement on many of those issues?

A: I wholeheartedly endorse Senator Collins for re-election. I think she’s doing a great job for Maine and for the country. … I don’t really know, exactly, what her position is on the NSA; you’d have to ask her about that.

I just know my position, but I think we’re a big political party. There’s room for not-entire agreement on every issue.

So why are grassroots righties annoyed? Here’s a representative comment from Headlines:

Well, since Collins is running unopposed on the Republican side, it’s logical for Paul to support her over her democrat opponent. However, this is less about “GOP unity” than it is about Rand Paul being desperate to publicly secure his position within the GOP establishment ranks – Republicans would have supported Collins without Rand Paul’s endorsement, so, it’s all pretty meaningless as far as the Maine election goes.

Rand Paul wants to make that everyone knows that he has shifted from the conservative side, to the establishment side – and his ‘wholehearted’ support for Collins is just one more box checked.

Yeah, the “wholehearted” Collins endorsement is interesting mainly as a temperature check on how Paul’s effort to mainstream-ize himself before 2016 is going. Nearly every GOP candidate has a problem with either the establishment or with grassroots conservatives. (The only major contender I can think of who really doesn’t is Scott Walker.) Paul’s problem, needless to say, is with the establishment, who think he’s too dovish, too much like dad, and just too anti-status quo to be a safe pick, so he’s been at pains lately to try to solve it. At some point, between endorsing Mitch McConnell and shifting to a hawkish posture on Russia and running away from Cliven Bundy and making status-quo noises on abortion and ObamaCare, he risks pandering a bit too much to the donor class and thereby irritating his base of righties and libertarians. Backing Collins so effusively when he could have demurred with a simple “I always support Republicans over Democrats” might have been the last straw, definitive proof that he’s “over-correcting.” Bad enough that he’d back McConnell, tea-party enemy number one for the moment, over a grassroots favorite, but to cheer on someone who voted for the stimulus? C’mon.

The risk here isn’t that righties won’t forgive him. He’s already hard at work on a remedial pander, floating a bill to cut foreign aid to the Palestinians unless they recognize Israel’s right to exist. The risk is that he’s putting himself at a disadvantage against Cruz in the battle for tea-party hearts and minds while not reaping any concomitant benefits among the establishmentarians he’s trying to impress. Paul doesn’t expect to win their votes; all he wants is for them to see him as an acceptable nominee, sufficiently status-quo that they won’t unite to destroy him if he pulls an upset in Iowa or New Hampshire. He even met with Romney’s donor network recently, the creme de la creme of the GOP donor class, to make nice. How’s it going so far? You tell me:

The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton, a familiar face on Wall Street following her tenure as a New York senator with relatively moderate views on taxation and financial regulation.

“If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. “We could live with either one. Jeb versus Joe Biden would also be fine. It’s Rand Paul or Ted Cruz versus someone like Elizabeth Warren that would be everybody’s worst nightmare.”…

Ted Cruz, whose wife works at Goldman Sachs, is viewed negatively by many in the industry for his support of last year’s government shutdown and scorched earth approach to political battle. Cruz fired up an activist gathering in New Hampshire earlier this month with the kind of provocative populist message that makes bankers very nervous. “The rich and powerful, those who walk the corridors of power, are getting fat and happy,” Cruz thundered. At the same event, Paul argued that the GOP “cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people and Wall Street.”

As a wise man recently said, the first duty of establishmentarians is to the establishment, meaning that stopping Paul (or Cruz) will almost certainly take precedence for rich Republicans in 2016 over stopping Hillary. I guess, in theory, with enough pandering Rand could convince them that he’s marginally better than her, but how much pandering could he realistically do before convincing his grassroots fans that he’s sold out and would be as disappointing to righties as president as Obama was to hardcore lefties? Maybe there’s no way out of this bind.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat10:41

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on March 13, 2014 by Allahpundit

For months and months, for example, I’ve been demanding facts — not shibboleths or epithets — from the anti-Mitch McConnell brigade…

For more than a decade, Sen. Mitch McConnell has stood alone in fighting unconstitutional campaign finance laws, earning him the undying enmity of The New York Times…

As minority leader, McConnell managed to get every single Republican in the Senate to vote against Obamacare — even “Strange New Respect” Republicans like John McCain, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham. No other Republican leader has ever accomplished anything like that…

McConnell tricked Obama into accepting the only spending cuts to the federal government in more than half a century…

On the most important issue — immigration — McConnell not only voted against Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill, but at the moment, he may be the only thing standing between us and a scheme to import 30 million new Democratic voters. As House Speaker John Boehner works feverishly behind the scenes to push amnesty through, McConnell recently announced that there would be no immigration bill in 2014 (thank almighty God)…

Here’s the counter-argument from the anti-McConnell crowd: HE’S A RINO! HE’S AN ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN! HE’S BEEN A TERRIBLE LEADER! MITCH LIED, KIDS DIED!

Ladies and Gentlemen, there you have all the attributes of a mob: Slogans in lieu of logic and evidence, beliefs impenetrable by facts, emotional hatred of the “enemy” and the acceptance of wild contradictions. Isn’t Paul Ryan dreamy? Let’s run Ted Cruz for president! We love Reagan … But we hate McConnell for voting with Reagan!

Nothing good has ever been accomplished by a mob.

***

Finally, while I appreciate the review of Mitch McConnell’s legislative record, there’s that other record that is less convenient. No, no, not the multiple votes to increase the debt ceiling. No, not the multiple votes that funded Obamacare. No, not McConnell’s vote opposing returning power to the states to control their own highway programs. No, I’m not even referring to Mitch McConnell’s vote to send the Senate’s amnesty plan to the floor of the Senate for consideration — something he could have rallied his side to oppose through a filibuster.

Instead, I’m talking about the candidates McConnell has supported instead of the conservatives.

Would Ann have preferred Trey Grayson over Rand Paul? Grayson is now working with an anti-gun Democratic super PAC to elect Democrats. Mitch McConnell supported Trey Grayson.

Would Ann have preferred Charlie Crist over Rubio? She and I certainly did not like Rubio’s immigration plan — the one McConnell voted to get out of committee to the floor of the Senate. But would she have preferred Charlie Crist, who was and remains to the left of Rubio on the issue? Mitch McConnell supported Charlie Crist.

Would Ann have preferred Arlen Specter to Pat Toomey like Mitch McConnell did?

What about David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz?

What about Bob Bennett? Does Ann think conservatives, led by the Senate Conservatives Fund, should have left in the Senate the Republican who helped author the federal individual mandate that went into Obamacare? His replacement was Mike Lee. Would Ann really join Mitch McConnell wanting to keep Bob Bennett in the Senate over Mike Lee…

There’s no right wing mob on the march. There’s just a cleaning crew. If we don’t clean up our own side, the general election voters surely will. 2006 taught us that.

***

Mr. McConnell is not only an incumbent senator who represents the party opposed to the White House in a midterm election, but he also comes from a state that opposes the president. Since 1956, only seven senators in these circumstances have lost re-election. The last time was in 1998, when John Edwards defeated Senator Lauch Faircloth in North Carolina.

But 2014 is not 1998. Back then, President Bill Clinton’s approval rating was in the mid-60s. Today, President Obama’s ratings are mired in the low 40s. Kentucky is also not North Carolina, which only narrowly voted against Mr. Clinton. Kentucky is an extremely favorable state for a Republican candidate: It voted for Romney and McCain by an average of 25 points to the right of the country.

From that perspective, there is no precedent for a McConnell defeat. No senator has lost in a state as favorable as Kentucky when the president represents the other party…

Campaigns tend to move partisans toward their respective corners. Campaign advertisements, messages, and even gaffes, emphasize the ideological differences between the candidates and polarize voters along party lines. Mr. McConnell will spend the next eight months reminding voters that he’s the president’s most reliable adversary, and that control of the Senate is at stake. That message seems likely to resonate with Kentucky’s anti-Obama electorate.

***

***

***


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Huckabee on the “RINO” label: The Nazis devalued people too, you know

Huckabeeonthe“RINO”label:TheNazisdevalued

Huckabee on the “RINO” label: The Nazis devalued people too, you know

posted at 6:41 pm on January 23, 2014 by Allahpundit

I’ve looked for a transcript but can’t find one so I’m forced to rely on HuffPo’s account of what he said. On the one hand, they’re a lefty news site, doubtless eager to put his quotes in the worst possible light. On the other hand, their reporter is Jon Ward, who used to work for the Daily Caller and is respected in the field. On the other other hand, the rhetoric sounds kind of Huck-ish, doesn’t it? With some pols, you can look at a quote that’s attributed to them and say, nah, no way. With Huck, you never know when a curveball’s coming. And this subject, the perils of the “RINO” label, has been on his mind lately.

Has it come to this?

“Let’s stop calling each other somehow less Republican than someone else. Be for the person you’re for,” Huckabee said.

He said that he will be traveling to Auschwitz next week for the anniversary of the liberation of the concentration camp, and noted that the horror of the Holocaust began with the devaluation of people.

“It all started when people were devalued, when people were deemed ‘less than someone else,’” Huckabee said. “We look back on that time in history and we think, ‘How can educated people, university trained, how can a nation like Germany with all of its resources, with its vast level of its population with higher education, get to a place where they can do something so heinous?’ You realize that the only way you can end up there is when you start with the idea that people just aren’t as valuable as you are.”

The clear implication by Huckabee was that those within the GOP who make a habit of demeaning others as not conservative enough are flirting with behavior that can have grave ramifications down the road. It was a serious charge…

“And if I accept that for the great human family, and I’m willing to value every human life as having worth and intrinsic value, then surely I’ll be able to value the life of those who voluntarily join me in a party that I joined when I was a teenager,” he said.

Ward was challenged on his description on Twitter. Here’s his rough transcript of what Huck said:

Assuming that’s accurate, he’s saying … what? That the path to Auschwitz runs through calling him a RINO? No, c’mon. All he’s saying, I think, is that using purity tests to “devalue” others is harmful and apt to lead to purges, whether at a silly trivial level like “RINO” or a grand sinister one like calling Jews “vermin.” He’s not equating the two. Which is fine, except that all political self-identification is inherently exclusionary. If you support single-payer and abortion on demand and call yourself “Republican,” you’re apt to catch some flak — including from Mike Huckabee, I’d bet. The best you can do to redeem his argument is say that ultimately he’s calling for more civility: When you shoo a liberal out of the party, there’s no need to demean him by slapping a pejorative neologism on him. Call him what he is, a liberal Democrat. (For example: “Mike Huckabee, liberal Democrat.”) Okay, but that’s an awfully basic point to require illumination with a Nazi analogy.

In fact, if he’s going to do that, why not use Nazi analogies to discourage all bad practices? E.g., “My three-year-old lied to me about sneaking a cookie from the cookie jar last night, so I reminded her that Hitler told many Big Lies en route to the Final Solution.” “My husband put a ‘Huckabee 2016′ bumper sticker on our car yesterday so I reminded him that Goebbels too used propaganda to hand power to a lunatic.” The punchline here is that Huck’s pushing this dumb anti-RINO campaign because he wants to get tea partiers and libertarians off his back if/when he runs again in 2016, but going Godwin on them just means they’re going to be more antagonistic. Imagine the historical lessons they’ll have for him about the perils of, say, supporting bigger government to “do good.”

Exit question: Second look at Rick Santorum as designated social-con champion in 2016?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, January 9, 2014

The first big-name Republican to attack Christie over Bridgegate is … Lindsey Graham? Update: Graham “clarifies”

Thefirstbig-nameRepublicantoattackChristieover

The first big-name Republican to attack Christie over Bridgegate is … Lindsey Graham? Update: Graham “clarifies”

posted at 6:41 pm on January 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

Perfectly rational in one sense, deeply surprising in another. And not just for the obvious “RINO versus RINO” reasons.

How the heck did Rand Paul lose the “bash Christie” sweepstakes to Lindsey Graham?

“It seems to me that this whole bridge thing reinforces a narrative that’s troublesome about the guy, he’s kind of a bully,” Graham told NBC News on Thursday on Capitol Hill, referring to the scandal over land closures on the George Washington Bridge that’s engulfed Christie over the past two days…

“If anybody in my office had done such a thing, they knew what their fate would be cause I’m not that kind a guy,” Graham said. “I just don’t see how people that close to him could have felt comfortable enough to do this if they thought their boss wasn’t of this mindset. Isn’t that just common sense?”…

“I think he’s going to have a hard time in the South, I really do. The edge is part of it. You know, he’s a little too slick by half,” Graham said.

He added: “I think the problem he’s going to have in the South is against the view of his actual positions because it’s hard for me to understand what he’s for and what he’s against on the social side.”

Exactly what I would have expected from Paul, not John McCain’s sidekick — especially after McCain named Christie first a few days ago on “The Tonight Show” when asked which Republicans he likes for 2016. When reporters finally cornered Paul on Bridgegate today, in fact, he muttered something about how much he hates being stuck in traffic and left it there. Was there some sort of Paul/Christie detente over the holidays that I missed? Or some low-grade Graham/Christie feud that no one’s been paying attention to?

The rational explanation is that Graham’s worried about a primary challenge this spring and can’t resist an opportunity to put the boots to the base’s second-least favorite RINO. But even so, that’s … not so rational. The conservative indictment against Graham is so long, and his partnership with the base’s least favorite RINO so well known, that it’s hard to believe he thought he could buy any cred by taking a few easy shots at Christie. On the contrary, according to the New York Times back in November, Christie reportedly told South Carolina Republicans after he was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association that he wanted to go to South Carolina and campaign for Graham even though he’s running for Senate. That made perfect sense — Christie wants to ingratiate himself with the establishment down there before 2016 and Graham wants a vote of confidence from a big-name up-and-coming Republican to counter the daily attacks by tea partiers. Combining to quash a challenge from the right would be a feather in both of their establishment caps. And they’re natural allies on immigration and foreign policy, with Christie set to carry the pro-NSA, pro-interventionist McCain/Graham banner into battle against their mutual nemesis Paul in 2016.

If Graham’s willing to throw all that away for a little quick-and-easy piling on, it must be because he’s utterly convinced that Christie’s more of a liability in South Carolina than he is an asset. And he came to that conclusion, I assume, before Bridgegate, not after: No one thinks a scandal about New York traffic in which Christie hasn’t been directly implicated is so poisonous that it would completely transform his chances down south overnight. Say what you want about Grahamnesty, but he must have a decent read on the pulse of his home state to get elected repeatedly despite his reputation for RINOism. Maybe Christie’s 2016 odds are longer than we thought.

Update: Annnnnd, just like that:

Update: He must have gotten quite the scolding from Maverick:

“I finally got to see portions of the news conference. I’m very impressed with the contrite nature in taking responsibility. In today’s political environment it was a breath of fresh air and I think he handled it as well as he could,” Graham told CNN.

“It was very impressive,” he continued. “I don’t know the guy that well. The allegations, they’re not well, but I just watched it for 15-20 minutes and I’m very impressed. He took every question, didn’t dodge, I think he went a long way to helping himself today.”


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

The first big-name Republican to attack Christie over Bridgegate is … Lindsey Graham?

Thefirstbig-nameRepublicantoattackChristieover

The first big-name Republican to attack Christie over Bridgegate is … Lindsey Graham? Update: Graham “clarifies”

posted at 6:41 pm on January 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

Perfectly rational in one sense, deeply surprising in another. And not just for the obvious “RINO versus RINO” reasons.

How the heck did Rand Paul lose the “bash Christie” sweepstakes to Lindsey Graham?

“It seems to me that this whole bridge thing reinforces a narrative that’s troublesome about the guy, he’s kind of a bully,” Graham told NBC News on Thursday on Capitol Hill, referring to the scandal over land closures on the George Washington Bridge that’s engulfed Christie over the past two days…

“If anybody in my office had done such a thing, they knew what their fate would be cause I’m not that kind a guy,” Graham said. “I just don’t see how people that close to him could have felt comfortable enough to do this if they thought their boss wasn’t of this mindset. Isn’t that just common sense?”…

“I think he’s going to have a hard time in the South, I really do. The edge is part of it. You know, he’s a little too slick by half,” Graham said.

He added: “I think the problem he’s going to have in the South is against the view of his actual positions because it’s hard for me to understand what he’s for and what he’s against on the social side.”

Exactly what I would have expected from Paul, not John McCain’s sidekick — especially after McCain named Christie first a few days ago on “The Tonight Show” when asked which Republicans he likes for 2016. When reporters finally cornered Paul on Bridgegate today, in fact, he muttered something about how much he hates being stuck in traffic and left it there. Was there some sort of Paul/Christie detente over the holidays that I missed? Or some low-grade Graham/Christie feud that no one’s been paying attention to?

The rational explanation is that Graham’s worried about a primary challenge this spring and can’t resist an opportunity to put the boots to the base’s second-least favorite RINO. But even so, that’s … not so rational. The conservative indictment against Graham is so long, and his partnership with the base’s least favorite RINO so well known, that it’s hard to believe he thought he could buy any cred by taking a few easy shots at Christie. On the contrary, according to the New York Times back in November, Christie reportedly told South Carolina Republicans after he was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association that he wanted to go to South Carolina and campaign for Graham even though he’s running for Senate. That made perfect sense — Christie wants to ingratiate himself with the establishment down there before 2016 and Graham wants a vote of confidence from a big-name up-and-coming Republican to counter the daily attacks by tea partiers. Combining to quash a challenge from the right would be a feather in both of their establishment caps. And they’re natural allies on immigration and foreign policy, with Christie set to carry the pro-NSA, pro-interventionist McCain/Graham banner into battle against their mutual nemesis Paul in 2016.

If Graham’s willing to throw all that away for a little quick-and-easy piling on, it must be because he’s utterly convinced that Christie’s more of a liability in South Carolina than he is an asset. And he came to that conclusion, I assume, before Bridgegate, not after: No one thinks a scandal about New York traffic in which Christie hasn’t been directly implicated is so poisonous that it would completely transform his chances down south overnight. Say what you want about Grahamnesty, but he must have a decent read on the pulse of his home state to get elected repeatedly despite his reputation for RINOism. Maybe Christie’s 2016 odds are longer than we thought.

Update: Annnnnd, just like that:

Update: He must have gotten quite the scolding from Maverick:

“I finally got to see portions of the news conference. I’m very impressed with the contrite nature in taking responsibility. In today’s political environment it was a breath of fresh air and I think he handled it as well as he could,” Graham told CNN.

“It was very impressive,” he continued. “I don’t know the guy that well. The allegations, they’re not well, but I just watched it for 15-20 minutes and I’m very impressed. He took every question, didn’t dodge, I think he went a long way to helping himself today.”


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Rush Limbaugh: Why aren’t Christie’s RINO pals rushing to his side?

RushLimbaugh:Whyaren’tChristie’sRINOpalsrushing

Rush Limbaugh: Why aren’t Christie’s RINO pals rushing to his side?

posted at 5:21 pm on January 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via the Daily Rushbo, the wildebeest analogy made me chuckle. I think this is more of a shot at RINOs for having poor taste in aligning themselves with Christie in the first place then a shot at them for being cowardly in not backing their guy up in his hour of need, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive. As a noted RINO myself (albeit one who’s skeptical of Christie’s claims of innocence), I’m not sure what any of his allies could have said to defend him yesterday. If your strongest argument for your guy is “well, there’s no proof that he’s involved yet,” you’re probably better off sitting tight and hoping for the best. For what it’s worth, my Twitter timeline this morning was overflowing with praise for Christie from center-righties for his quick firing of Bridget Kelly and extended apologetics at today’s presser. By closing time tomorrow, I’d bet, they’ll have moved on to “it’s old news.” Big-name RINOs will be backing him up before you know it.

Since I needled S.E. Cupp last night for thinking Christie could resign and then rebound to run for president anyway (what?), let me take a swig of what she’s drinking and float this idea: Could Bridgegate have slightly increased the chance of him running as an independent in 2016? Those odds are lo-o-o-ong, but I can kinda sorta imagine a scenario in which Christie becomes so alienated from conservative voters through centrist policy moves, petty scandals, and abrasive anti-Republican rhetoric that he concludes he has no path through the primaries. Scott Walker’s too appealing as a centrist PEU-smashing alternative, the rest of the field’s too strong, he’s too damaged, and so the door is, realistically, closed — as a Republican. As an independent, though, he’d be a player again. He’d get tons of free media from the press, which would find the drama of a paradigm-shifting centrist candidacy irresistible (at first), and he’d probably do okay with fundraising between Christie loyalists in the national GOP donor class, Wall Street players eager to see a moderate local guy win the White House (Mike Bloomberg foremost among them), and disaffected small donors who are looking for a new Perot to end “business as usual” in politics. If Bridgegate is followed by a few more setbacks and his star starts to dim inside the GOP, his best (longshot) bet might be to jump in as an indie and declare the age of the two-party system over or whatever. He might not win — in fact, he almost certainly wouldn’t — but launching a viable third-party candidacy would be a major achievement in its own right and doubtless highly flattering to his giant ego. And it’d be true to his personal brand, which isn’t really Republican anymore anyway. When he talks national politics, you’re more likely to hear him inveigh against gridlock and “Washington” than against Obama and the Democrats. If he won the GOP nomination, he’d run in the general election as an independent for all intents and purposes anyway. If he starts to fade over the next two years with the party, I wonder if that’s the route he’ll go.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, November 22, 2013

Scott Walker on the difference between him and Christie: “I’m not going to call you an idiot”

ScottWalkeronthedifferencebetweenhimand

Scott Walker on the difference between him and Christie: “I’m not going to call you an idiot”

posted at 5:21 pm on November 22, 2013 by Allahpundit

The lightest of early jabs thrown by one formidable 2016 contender at another. Unlike pretty much everyone else in the prospective field, Walker is on good terms with Christie.

Walker’s supporters say … his more conservative stances on several issues would help him in GOP primaries. And Walker’s calm Midwestern demeanor, they say, will play better in Iowa, South Carolina and other places than would Christie’s penchant for bombast and confrontation…

Walker didn’t quarrel with the premise. “Chris and I are good friends,” he said, and both of them stay true to their principles.

“The demeanor you have does have an impact,” Walker said. In New Jersey, he said, “the way that Chris has reacted to things actually fits.”

“I just have a Midwestern filter, that’s the difference,” Walker said. “I’m willing to speak out, but I’m not going to call you an idiot. I’m just going to say ‘That’s a ridiculous question,’ and move on.”

Interesting, not because it presages some nasty Walker/Christie spat — Walker actually rode to his defense a few days ago after Rand Paul attacked him again for being too moderate — but because these two probably are, at least at the beginning of the primary campaign, going to be champions for different niches of the GOP electorate. I keep imagining the 2016 field as splitting between a centrist, a tea partier, and some hybrid candidate who can pull dissatisfied voters from both groups. If Jeb Bush doesn’t run (and Christie’s doing what he can to make sure that he doesn’t), he’ll be the centrist guy. Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, in all likelihood, will be the tea-party guy. Walker’s well positioned to be the hybrid. (So was Rubio before he torched his conservative credibility for amnesty.) A few days ago Phil Klein dubbed him Christie’s worst nightmare potentially because he, maybe uniquely among the field, can counter Christie’s big electability argument. Not only would Walker, like Christie, have won reelection in a reliably blue state, he would have done it despite ferocious left-wing attempts to oust him for his collective bargaining reforms a few years ago. He might not pile up Christie’s numbers with blacks and Latinos but he can point to the recall as proof that he knows how to win even when Democrats are throwing everything they’ve got at him.

Just one question: What is it, exactly, that makes Christie a RINO and Walker a conservative, or at least conservative enough to qualify for the “hybrid” role in the next primary? Does it have to do with policy really or is it more of an attitudinal thing that people attempt to justify by appealing to policy? Both of them are famous for battling public employee unions; both of them are pro-life and support a path to citizenship for illegals (Walker’s take on border security might actually be more liberal than any of his rivals, Christie included); and both like to contrast their focus on “results” with the gridlock and brinksmanship in D.C. This bit from Walker’s op-ed a few days ago could have come straight out of one of Christie’s speeches:

In Washington the fight is over “fiscal cliffs,” “debt limits,” “sequesters” and “shutdowns.” In the states, Republicans focus on improving education, caring for the poor, reforming government, lowering taxes, fixing entitlements, reducing dependency, improving health care, and creating jobs and opportunity for the unemployed.

Republicans need to do more than simply say no to Mr. Obama and his party’s big-government agenda. They can offer Americans positive solutions for the nation’s challenges—to reduce dependency, and create hope, opportunity, and upward mobility for all citizens.

There are differences too, of course — Walker will spend lots of time in 2016 contrasting his gun policies with Christie’s, and the two of them will inevitably end up getting down in the weeds over who the bigger sellout on ObamaCare is. Christie expanded Medicaid in New Jersey temporarily; Walker rejected the Medicaid expansion and lowered the income level for eligibility in the program, with the newly ineligible poor expected to enroll in O-Care and start receiving federal subsidies instead. Which policy is “less conservative”? We’ll find out! My point, though, is that perceptions that Christie’s a centrist sellout while Walker’s a principled conservative seem to turn less on what they’ve done as governors than the manner in which they’ve done it. Walker’s the guy who walked through political fire, at personal risk to himself, to make those collective bargaining reforms stick. Christie’s the guy who gave Obama his big bipartisan Sandy photo op on the eve of the election and who seems to end up squabbling with tea-party favorites like Rand Paul every other week. Klein, in the post linked above, distinguished them by saying that righties seem to view Walker as “one of us” whereas they have the opposite sense of Christie, that he’s another northeastern Republican who views the conservative base with thinly veiled contempt. Isn’t that the big difference between them (apart from, as Walker says, Christie’s willingness to call his critics “idiots”)?

I don’t mean to overstate the importance of style in saying that, though. One crucial thing that righties learned about Walker during and after the Thunderdome in Madison over collective bargaining is that the guy simply will not bend on a policy he believes in, no matter how much acid the left spits at him and how far into the tank the media goes for Democrats in attacking him. He’s unflappable. That’s hugely significant when you’re thinking of throwing your vote to a guy who isn’t the most orthodox conservative in the field. The big worry about Christie is that he’ll be wooed by media adulation of his charisma and his own rhetoric about the glories of compromise into governing even further from the center than people think. That’s less of a worry with Walker, the guy who became a right-wing rock star precisely because he wouldn’t compromise.

Here’s Christie in his new role as RGA chair running through the familiar condemnation of D.C. brinksmanship yesterday.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Top Cuccinelli advisor: What killed us more than anything was … the shutdown

TopCuccinelliadvisor:Whatkilledusmorethan

Top Cuccinelli advisor: What killed us more than anything was … the shutdown

posted at 7:21 pm on November 7, 2013 by Allahpundit

It’s Chris La Civita, the same guy whose comment Tuesday night about national Republicans abandoning Cooch in early October lit the fuse of the RINO/tea party powderkeg that exploded yesterday. Don’t blame the RNC, he now says. Blame the damned shutdown, which of course was very strongly opposed by the big-money RINOs who’ve been slammed for supposedly having stabbed Cuccinelli in the back.

“It moved the disaster of Obamacare away from our narrative,” he says, in an interview with National Review Online. “It sucked the oxygen out of the room. Instead of talking about Obamacare, we were talking about the shutdown.”

In mid October, LaCivita says, the campaign was startled by how the shutdown affected their momentum. Their internal poll numbers dipped and several of the Virginia attorney general’s donors, especially conservative groups aligned with Cuccinelli, “suddenly became gun-shy.”…

LaCivita, however, doesn’t blame national Republican power brokers for Cuccinelli’s loss. Yes, he says, they spent less in Virginia than they did during the 2009 gubernatorial race, which was easily won by Republican Bob McDonnell. But they did step up, he says, and provided valuable support.

“Wait a sec,” you say. “Didn’t the exit polls in Virginia show that voters there blamed the GOP and Obama nearly equally for the shutdown?” Indeed they did, but La Civita’s not really claiming otherwise. He’s not saying that people turned against Cooch because of it, he’s saying that the campaign was deprived of the chance to spend the entire final month hammering McAuliffe on O-Care. The shutdown was a distraction at a crucial moment. Then again, just because the final exits showed a nearly even split on blame doesn’t mean that that split was even all along. La Civita himself says Cuccinelli’s polling dropped initially because of it, which evidently was enough to convince some righty donors that he was a lost cause. Dig a bit further into the exits and you’ll see that the shutdown hurt Cooch a lot with a not-so-small segment of the electorate: “[McAuliffe] also won the three in 10 Virginia voters who said someone in their household was affected by the partial federal shutdown last month, by a 19-point margin.” Maybe most of those were Democratic households to begin with, but not all were. Some were surely headed by people in the defense industry. How many potential GOP votes switched there?

It could even be that the reason the polls didn’t detect Cuccinelli’s near-win is because anger over the shutdown gradually evaporated after it ended. As the story of the government closing down faded and the story of the O-Care trainwreck emerged, people who were initially sour on the GOP because of the former began to see some merit in the “defund” campaign in hindsight — just not quite enough to bring Cooch all the way back from the hit he took earlier in the month. That’s conjecture, but it’s interesting that a guy as close to Cuccinelli as LaCivita would say something that might feed it. Ah well. Doesn’t really matter. Both wings of the party are convinced that it was the other side that kneecapped Ken. Nothing will change that.

Exit question: Many grassroots conservative groups spent money to try to elect Cuccinelli, but some didn’t — and they’re criticizing the RNC anyway for having spent “only” $3 million. How come?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat10:01

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:01 pm on November 6, 2013 by Allahpundit

Chris Christie said Wednesday that he’s ignoring – for now – the fevered speculation about his presidential ambitions following a decisive re-election victory as a Republican in deep-blue New Jersey. But his words and actions suggested otherwise.

“It’s complimentary. It’s flattering and I have no problem with it,” Christie said at a press conference at a school on Wednesday. “But I want to be really clear about this: I have a job to do. I got re-elected to do a job last night, and that’s the job I’m going to do.”…

The governor made clear, though, that he’s not about to go changing his trademark style should he wage a bid for the presidency.

“I’m not here to put on a show,” he added a bit later. “I’m here to win.”

***

President Obama on Wednesday afternoon called newly re-elected New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to congratulate him on his landslide victory.

“Obviously [the president] and the governor have spent a lot of time together … The president was glad to congratulate him on his victory,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday, according to a pool reporter traveling with the president.

***

Last year, Chris Christie was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association and he officially takes over that post in Arizona in 15 days. It’s a position with a high national profile, money to spread around and a bully pulpit.

So, in way, Christie’s power just doubled

The national leadership role will also take Christie around the country many times over to raise money, make speeches and show off his prowess as a world-class schmoozer born and bred on bare-knuckle Jersey politics. He did the same thing last year as RGA vice chairman.

“I think he’s going to be the most popular draw on the campaign trail for 2014,” said Schmidt, a native of North Plainfield. “He’s going to have a great opportunity to build that national fundraising network to run for president, a reason and an excuse to campaign all over the country for all sorts of other candidates other than his own ambition.”

***

Another open question is how pointedly Christie will contrast his style of governance to politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz, who has been unabashed in his belief that the government shutdown served a purpose.

Barbour said that instead of comparing themselves to Cruz, he expects governors to contrast themselves to Barack Obama. Still, he added: “But that will be smarter than going out and starting fights you can’t win.”

Others hope Christie will be more blunt.

“Any Republican who considers himself a party leader has an obligation to be singling out Ted Cruz and not just taking the easy way out of blaming House Republicans,” said Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who did not specifically name Christie. “So far I’m the only one that’s doing it.

***

“I was very interested that he had Susana Martinez there in the last days to campaign with him,” [Orrin] Hatch told reporters on Capitol Hill Wednesday. “Because that would make a great ticket.”…

“I think that the man really is an exceptionally tough, smart, good conservative who literally appeals across the board, which is what the Republicans need to have,” Hatch said, referring to Christie. “And let’s face it, Susana Martinez has a lot of qualities that would help a lot of people to understand that the Republican Party is a broad base party.”

***

“I understand that everyone is upset because I’ve said some things. But they need to learn that about me. If they are going to hire me to do a job, I’m going to do the job for the people that I’m representing, and they are going to hear it from me,” Christie told CNN’s Jake Tapper Tuesday.

“I don’t think I need to fence mend, I think people just have to learn who I am,” said Christie.

“He built a profile as somebody who was quick to criticize Republicans. If you remember after Sandy, he criticized Republicans as being the ones that were holding it up,” said CNN political commentator and Republican strategist Kevin Madden.

“He was so quick to criticize Republicans. And he gained a lot of favor and a lot of love from the mainstream media … and that put him in a difficult position with a lot of base voters,” said Madden.

***

“I wonder whether Democrats are going to really start to regret how much of a pass they gave Christie in this election,” Hunt said. “You didn’t really see the party apparatus crank up for Barbara Buono…They could have dredged up some of what we’re seeing come out, the Romney vet of Chris Christie, all of these problems in his past, but they let all that go.”

“The Reagan Democrats are alive,” Matthews said. “They’re working class, middle class, mostly Catholics—I’m just saying, it’s a fact—ethnic people, people who came two or three generations ago. They tend to be very, very patriotic. And they like reality. They don’t like Al Gores. They don’t like people like [Michael] Dukakis. They want real people with blood in them. People that talk with attitude.”

***

Just one day after Chris Christie’s successful reelection bid, Ron Paul already foresees doom for the New Jersey governor’s 2016 aspirations. The former Texas representative saw Christie another possible candidate from the “mushy middle” similar to the past two Republican presidential nominees who have lost.

“If he wants to go the way of McCain and Romney, I guess he can go ahead and do it,” Paul said on Fox News on Wednesday. “I think it’ll be same old stuff again, wishy-washy stuff — chase [out] all the constitutionalists, limited-government, libertarians.”

***

The big problem for Christie is that these two ostensibly separate concerns—his temperament and his problems with the base—are likely to merge in unpleasant ways. If there is one thing about Christie that does appeal to the Tea Party crowd, it is his demeanor. (I am uncertain that even hardcore right-wingers will enjoy Christie’s personality after being exposed to it day after day for a year, but let’s leave that aside.) They love his disdain for liberals and unions, his “straight talk,” and his seemingly anti-establishment, regular-guy shtick. (Ironically, it’s this anti-establishment shtick that seems to have endeared Christie to the Republican establishment, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page to the Lords of Finance.)

When Christie is inevitably attacked by his competitors on some of the issues Cohn mentions, then expect him to go into full-bore angry guy mode. The GOP primary is thus going to set up a dynamic in which Christie will have to rely on his worst instincts. If you think Mitt Romney was forced into unpalatable general election positions during his primary campaign, just wait until Christie uses his anger to deflect attacks and provides a whole slew of new YouTube clips. The other option is to rebrand himself as a staunch rightwinger, which could do the trick in the primary, but will also hinder his efforts to be a different type of Republican.

***

There are few things an elected official works harder at than pretending to be a “real” person. Christie is comfortable playing himself. It doesn’t feel like he’s reaching for a mental cue card with talking points every time he answer a question. And when he doesn’t want to answer a question, Christie tells you “it’s none of your business.” Lawyer, lobbyist, governor, perhaps, but the perception is that he is as real as real gets in major league politics. Even when you disagree with him, you rarely dislike him. That kind of public currency goes a long way…

Christie is a product of a Northeastern Republican tradition that is expert at running bureaucracy, not standing athwart history, yelling Stop. He’s a politician like everyone else — in some ways, even more true to the vocation than others. Actually, the factors that make someone like Rand Paul and Christie compelling are entirely different. The latter doesn’t spend too much time reflecting on democracy’s role during Jim Crow (as interesting a topic as that might be), he wants to know where the &%#@&?$%# money is for Sandy relief. That’s why Christie probably wouldn’t sound like a very good Senator, though there is the strong possibility that he might make a very good national candidate.

***

There’s a historical precedent: Bill Clinton. He was ostensibly a “New Democrat,” even though he was pro-choice, supported higher taxes, a universal health care system, gun control, and expanded rights for gays in the military. Rather than abandon core elements of the Democratic agenda, Clinton softened the edges on unreformed welfare, crime, middle class taxes, and said abortion should be “rare,” even if it should remain legal.

Today’s “New Republican” might not look very different from Chris Christie. He or she would preserve the core elements of the Republican agenda, but might retreat on a few symbolic but ultimately incidental issues—like immigration reform. He or she would stress pragmatism, the ability to work with both parties, and routinely distinguish him or herself from the party’s extremists. After losing the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections, Republicans should be quite familiar with the effectiveness of this tactic…

What should scare Republicans is the possibility that Christie is the only candidate who can pull off his own success. Christie is an exceptional candidate, and it wasn’t even inevitable that Christie would become Christie—it took quite a bit of luck, and even some perverse luck in the form of Hurricane Sandy. It’s unclear whether any other Republican can advance through the primaries while retaining enough credibility to tack back to the center and distinguish themselves from the party in the general election. If not, the compounding effects of demographic change, a sour GOP brand, and a conservative Republican nominee might put the GOP at a real disadvantage. Fortunately for electability-minded Republicans, the last few months have brought deceptively good news.

***

The obvious analog for this Christie triumph is the 1998 Texas reelection victory of George W. Bush. The outcome of that race was never in doubt, but the Karl Rove-led Bush team pushed hard to produce a result that would be interpreted as a national GOP blueprint – something they achieved when Bush crushed Democrat Garry Mauro by 37 points and won 40 percent of the Latino vote and nearly a third of the black vote…

But the party is also much different now than it was 15 years ago. For many in the Republican universe, purity is now just as important – if not more important – than general election success. This is a consequence of the Bush years, which ended with the rise of Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress and the enactment of an agenda that the right regards as an affront to freedom. To explain how this could happen – how Americans could go to the polls and willfully elect a left-of-center government – the right decided to blame Bush. The basic idea: Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” amounted to reckless Big Government, gave conservatism a bad name and led a confused electorate to turn to Obama. It is out of this conviction that the Tea Party was born – both to fight Obama and to fight the Republicans who enabled Bush (and who might enable a future Bush)…

Many people loathe Christie, but plenty appreciate his swagger, especially in the Republican universe. The risk of Christie as a national candidate is that he’ll lose his temper at the wrong time, in the wrong way – an ugly explosion that becomes his identity and sinks his campaign. The flip side, though, is that he’s good at this game. He’s the rare politician who can talk to a room of people who disagree with them and win them over. They warm up to him, they laugh at his jokes, start to like him – then, without even realizing it, they’re working backward in their minds to tell themselves why, come to think of it, it actually wouldn’t be crazy to support him. I’ve seen him do this in rooms of skeptical Democrats. I’ve seen him do this in rooms of skeptical conservatives. And I can absolutely see him doing it in a room of skeptical Iowa Republicans two years from now.

***

Think about the map: To beat a candidate with Christie’s profile one on one, either Paul or Cruz would need to win Florida and then at least part of the industrial Midwest — the places where first McCain in 2008 and then Romney in 2012 successfully fended off the challenges from the right. Does Ted Cruz, whose resume is part Ivy League elite and part Texan evangelical, and whose father probably sets off every non-evangelical alarm bell there is, somehow win enough middle class Catholic Republicans to beat an Irish-Italian former prosecutor in Ohio and Michigan? Does Rand Paul, who veers between showing remarkable political savvy and indulging in not-ready-for-prime-time fumbling, really have what it takes to fundraise, organize, and win in big, not-deep-red states? Especially amid polls showing, as they probably would, that neither of them would fare as well as Christie in a general-election matchup against You Know Wh(illary)o?

Now maybe there’s a dark horse like Scott Walker or Mike Pence who can get oxygen instead and reshuffle the map. Maybe one of the Christie pseudo-scandals turns into a real one and wrecks his bid before it begins. Or maybe Rubio makes a roaring political comeback and fulfills his party-unifying potential. It’s early yet, Christie is hardly a near-lock like the current Democratic frontrunner, and (as she well knows) even near-locks have been known to run and lose.

But still, I’d be more certain of his vulnerability if I had a clearer sense of who might actually beat him.

***

Christie does have a powerful advantage that was in evidence in his New Jersey experience that would help him address this national dilemma, but it is not one he has yet brought forth. Christie has an unusual ability to connect with the common person because of his background and his manner of speech. As such, he is perhaps the only one of the major GOP contenders being bruited about who could conceivably rally mass public opinion behind a coherent center-right economic platform. But such ability does not come from the fighting Christie or the crisis leader, nor is it directly connected to the issues involved in the pension war: It comes straight from the average-Joe part of the Christie persona.

Christie’s New Jersey success ultimately rests on the notion that he represents the aspirations of average New Jerseyites against the elites. Translating that to the national stage would necessarily require him to explain to Republican elites why they must sacrifice to deal with our fiscal woes. Subsidies for business and the upper middle class will have to be cut to simply maintain today’s tax rates. Such translation would also apply to average Americans: Those who can afford to do more themselves will need to do so to avoid the tax hikes that could cripple our economy. Such a formulation would avoid the “many versus the few” trap the Democrats are waiting to deploy. Christie as the tribune for the common man would be defending the common good, asking the many to contribute for themselves.

Such an approach would draw on, but not simply repeat, Christie’s New Jersey experiences. Common Man Christie can be angry at times and soft at times, so long as in each case the emotion is deployed on behalf of the many and not on behalf of the few.

***

The breathless burbling about how Chris Christie’s victory “shows the path forward for the GOP” conveniently ignores his inability to turn New Jersey red for anyone but himself. Before election day, the New Jersey media didn’t see any reason for the Dems to worry about a Christie victory, as they enjoy a 48-32 majority in the Assembly and a 24-16 lead in the state Senate. While these numbers may change, early reports indicate most incumbents will be reelected. The New Jersey media reported that most polls indicate support for Christie won’t help any down-ballot Republicans. In 2009, Christie’s coat-tail effect was negligible too, resulting in only one new Assembly seat for the Republicans.

Like Schwarzenegger, Christie is a useful idiot for the Democrats—a needy, politically correct, ruling-class Republican who is trending liberal on everything from “climate change” to gay marriage to size-of-government issues. Christie loves the liberal limelight—a trait that will only intensify over time. The Democrats know a Trojan Horse when they see one…

The future of the GOP is not Christie but Cruz. Have the Republicans learned nothing from Romney’s loss, McCain’s loss, Dole’s loss? The lesson is simple: do not run moderates; that just hands victory to the Dems from the start. A basic test for any GOP nominee should be: Can this candidate win his own state? In Christie’s case, the question, despite Tuesday’s results, remains open. After all, he wasn’t exactly running against Hillary Clinton. Another test is: Can this candidate reclaim his own legislature for his party? If not, all the enthusiasm is empty. Republican governors in blue states that remain for all intents and purposes blue always end up doing damage to the party, racking up personal victories for themselves while selling out the party’s principles.

***

Via Campus Reform.

***

Via MFP and Mediaite.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair