"Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye"

No. Seriously. We really hardly knew you! In case you haven't heard, the little known Jon Huntsman is dropping out of the Republican primaries. A man who generated so little excitement that members of his of own campaign sometimes misspelled his name, Huntsman leaves the race with a whimper and not a bang.

As Obama's ambassador to China, he gained foreign policy experience and the hint, that maybe his policies were closer to Obama's than one might hope for in a Republican candidate for the Presidency.

He speaks Chinese, and seems more than a little proud of the fact, dropping Chinese phrases into speeches or conversations, like some obscure Firefly reference, but lacking its charm.
He comes across as perhaps being educated, but not necessarily wise.

His campaign never really caught fire. His leaving the race will remove a distraction from the business of selecting our eventual nominee.

It is rumored that he will endorse Romney. Look for that endorsement to garner just as much excitement as the rest of his candidacy.

H/T Memeorandum
Cross posted at Say Anything

Ron Paul on Israel: "Give it Back to the Arabs"

...according to a senior aide of his.

He (Ron Paul) is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

-Eric Dondero

Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President 1987/88

So, how does this jibe with Paul's statements that he would treat all countries equally...(except for the ones he wishes would vanish from the face of the earth)?

Got to love a man of principle, don't you? /sarc

H/T Memeorandum
Cross posted at Say Anything

Ron Paul: Not Ready for Prime Time

...much less President!



Ron Paul and his followers are on the record quite strenuously that Paul is not an "isolationist", but a non-interventionist. Which makes his exchange with Bachmann that much more odd.

"If she thinks we live in a dangerous world, she ought to think back when I was drafted in 1962 with the nuclear missiles in Cuba. And Kennedy calls Khrushchev and talks to him and talks him out of this and we don't have a nuclear exchange."

First of all, thank you for your service, Dr. Paul, even though it may have been reluctantly on your part.

Second, the impression you are trying to leave, that the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved with just a little jawboning from JFK, is more than a little misleading.

For starters, why would there have been a nuclear exchange to be talked out of? Oh, yeah. Kennedy launched a military blockade in international waters to stop Soviet shipments of arms to Cuba. But! But! Cuba and the Soviet Union were two sovereign nations! If the Soviets agreed to let Cuba "borrow" some of their missiles, isn't it their business? I mean, for JFK to put a blockade around Cuba and demand that the Soviets dismantle and remove their missiles, why that sounds an awful lot like...intervention!

And if there was a nuclear confrontation to be avoided, it was provoked by JFK's military actions. Whatever "jawboning" took place, it was only after a number of Soviet ships had been interdicted on the high seas. It was after Kennedy had intervened in the affairs of two sovereign nations, telling Cuba what it could not do within its own borders and telling the USSR what they could or could not export or transport in international waters.

So, Kennedy was an "interventionist" in Paul's terms and Paul praised him for it? Will wonders never cease? Extra points if you can guess who this statement refers to:

He calls the blockade "atrocious", "an act of war".

(Hint: It was in reference to Israel interdicting weapons such as missiles to be fired into Israel.)

JFK blockade = good. Israeli blockade = bad. Any questions?

And incidentally, Paul asked what a drone was doing overflying Iran? Well, there's a possibility that he was mistaken there. The drone may have been downed or stolen in Afghanistan and transported to Iran. But, from the tone of his question, he seems to be questioning the need for intelligence on what our enemies may be planning. But, again, to cite the example Paul himself put forth, it was U-2 overflights that revealed the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. Would a Paul administration shut down intelligence surveillance around the globe as "interventionist"?

Add to that his defense against an argument that no one was making, that we "declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims", and you have a muddled at best, contradictory, naive and dangerous outlook on foreign policy.

Calling Paul "not ready for prime time", is being generous.

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Ron Paul- Pandering to Kooks? Or Merely Careless in His Speech?

Right Klik had this, which is possibly the most sickening statement ever to come from a serious presidential candidate's lips:



Glee, Mr. Paul? I have seen video where you would not set 9/11 Truthers straight on their sick conspiratorial fantasies about our country staging the 9/11 attack, but on what basis can you claim that there was "glee" in the Bush administration over something this horrific?

Mr. Paul, many conservatives who strongly disagree with your naive, neo-isolationist foreign policy, at least respected you for your views on and adherence to the Constitution.

Statements like this, sir, will lose you much of that respect.

More at CBS, Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR.

Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign

Herman Cain, the affable and sometimes controversial candidate for president has suspended his presidential campaign.

ATLANTA — An unapologetic and defiant Herman Cain suspended his presidential campaign on Saturday, pledging that he “would not go away,” even as he abandoned hope of winning the Republican nomination. Instead, Mr. Cain announced what he called a “Plan B,” continued advocacy of his tax and foreign policy plans.

“As of today, with a lot of prayer and soul searching, I am suspending my presidential campaign,” Mr. Cain said. “Because of the continued distractions, the continued hurt caused on me and my family, not because we are not fighters. Not because I’m not a fighter.”

Mr. Cain, his wife at his side and adamantly professing his innocence, went out much the way he came in. The circus-like atmosphere – complete with numerous postponements, barbeque, a blues band and supporters in colonial-era dress – was in keeping with the campaign’s irreverence and disarray since its inception: Mr. Cain, a self-styled rebel, announced his intention to run earlier this year at a rally, also in Atlanta, with the nonsensical phrase, “Aw, shucky ducky!”

He interjected life into the campaign with his 9-9-9 plan, but repeated "bimbo eruptions" to use the Clinton era phrase, apparently doomed his credibility.

Perhaps there will be a place for Cain in the next Republican administration?

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR.

Christine Todd Whitman to Jon Huntsman: Run Third Party

Smoke break?

Question: "What is the word most closely associated with the Jon Huntsman campaign?"

Answer: "Who?"

Yes. Jon Huntsman, the candidate you know virtually nothing about (and many of you don't care to), whose name his own campaign tends to misspell, is being urged by Christine Todd Whitman to run third party. Your next question to that may well be "who is she?".

Christine Todd Whitman was the RINO head of the EPA under former President George W. Bush. From her wikipedia bio:

In 1993, Whitman helped to found the Committee for Responsible Government (CRG), a political advocacy group espousing moderate positions in the Republican Party. (In 1997, the CRG softened its pro-choice stance and renamed itself the Republican Leadership Council.)...During the 2008 presidential election, Whitman was touted by the media as a candidate for a Cabinet position under both Barack Obama and John McCain

Wow. Google "squishy Republican" and see if her name isn't at the top of the list. But, back to her "sage" advice to Mr. Huntsman. Could someone please tell me what the primary process is for? We have squishy RINOs telling Huntsman when (and not if) he loses to "go third party". We have Ron Paul coyly not saying whether or not he is considering a third party run when (not if) he loses in the primaries. I guess my question is, if these people want to run as Republicans, at what point do they accept the fact that a majority of Republicans have chosen someone else? I'm sure the Obama campaign would be delighted if every one of the failed candidates on the Right were to continue to campaign up until November. Every attack ad run after the primaries is one less he has to run. Every vote cast for the losers of the primaries (Yes, I said losers, and I meant it.) is one less to give the standard bearer of the Republican Party, who has the strongest if not only chance to defeat Obama.

If there's a retirement home for RINOs, let's put Christine there. Jon can come to visit her on the weekends. He's going to have a lot of time on his hands to do things like that really soon.

H/T Memeorandum

Cross posted at LCR.

Headline du jour

Poll: Romney, Gingrich in statistical dead heat in N.H.

In a related story, Bill Clinton and John Edwards are just in heat...

Newt and Mitt Top Fox News Poll

Fox News took a poll of Republican presidential candidates:

Newt Gingrich 23%
Mitt Romney 22%
Herman Cain 15%
Ron Paul 8%
Rick Perry 7%
Michele Bachmann 6%
Jon Huntsman 3%
Rick Santorum 2%

I mention this, in part, because I hear that certain individuals are claiming that Ron Paul somehow is polling in first place. The phrase "in your dreams" comes to mind!

Newt Gingrich has catapulted to the front of the race for the 2012 Republican nomination while Herman Cain has lost ground with GOP primary voters. Mitt Romney, once again, is holding steady.

A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows Gingrich’s support doubling in the last three weeks. He stood at 12 percent in late October -- before the Cain harassment allegations and Rick Perry’s “oops” debate. Now the former House speaker is at 23 percent, essentially tied for the lead with Romney, with 22 percent.

H/T Memorandum

"The Gingrich Surge Has Come"

On a related note*, Nate Silver has a piece, "The Gingrich Surge Has Come", where he examines the recent polling numbers of the leading Republican candidates. Nearly all of them make a frowny face, where their numbers have risen and now are trending down, or are relatively flat.

All except for one: Newt Gingrich




Newt's chart, much like his campaign, shows a bit of a smiley face, as his numbers continue to turn up at the corner. This is not predictive of final results, but it has caught the attention of liberals, such as Bill Maher, who are dusting off attacks on Gingrich they haven't used for years.

Check out all the graphs and more at "The Gingrich Surge Has Come"

*Maher: Gingrich is a "fat womanizing blowhard"

H/T Memeorandum

Newt Gingrich 'Is a Fat Womanizing Blowhard'

Pot, meet kettle:



You know what this means, don't you? It means that Newt is rising in the polls, and as such, the politics of personal destruction must be brought to bear on him.

First, "Fat, Womanizing Blowhard" could describe Teddy Kennedy to a "T". Ever hear Bill Maher refer to Teddy as a "Fat, Womanizing Blowhard"? Remove the comma, and "Fat Womanizing Blowhard" applies to Bill Clinton. Anyone ever hear Bill Maher refer to Bill Clinton as a womanizer? Or to Michael Moore as a "Fat blowhard"? (Trick questions. Almost no one hears Bill Maher any more!)

The level of hypocrisy is stunning, even for liberals. The next time a liberal sheds crocodile tears over Newt's wife being cheated on while she was hospitalized for cancer, just ask of they are talking about Newt or John Edwards? See if their faux outrage was the same for each.

Newt is by no means the perfect conservative, but I think the liberal left is envisioning Newt standing toe to toe in debate against the teleprompter dependent Obama and seeing their side irreparably bloodied. And they're wetting themselves over it, hence, the display above.

H/T Newsbusters

Cross posted at LCR.

Rick Perry Crashes and Burns in Last Night's Debate

This moment would be painful to watch if it were just, say, your grandfather struggling to tell a story. For the man who would be president, it is devastating.



Guess we can add Mr. Perry's name to the "Turn out the light, the party's over" list?

H/T Memeorandum

This Last Week's Polls: Who's an Acceptable Candidate for President?

This Last Week's Poll was actually two polls this week. The first, Which of these candidates would you consider pulling the lever for for president? In order of their finish:

Herman Cain 51%

Newt Gingrich 40%

Ron Paul 26%

Michelle Bachmann 20%

Rick Santorum 20%

Rick Perry 18%

Mitt Romney 11%

Jon Huntsman 5%

On the other side of the coin, we had "Which of these candidates would you NOT consider pulling the lever for for president?"

Jon Huntsman 55%

Ron Paul 48%

Mitt Romney 46%

Rick Perry 26%

Rick Santorum 25%

Herman Cain 23%

Michelle Bachmann 16%

Newt Gingrich 15%

The clear loser is Jon Huntsman. Jon came in last in the positive column and first in the negative column. Turn out the lights, the party's over!

No hands down winner, but Herman Cain was first in positives and third lowest in the negatives, while Newt Gingrich was second in positives, but had the fewest people reluctant to vote for him.

Ron Paul was third in the positive vote, but scored second in the number of people who won't pull the lever next to his name.

Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann were tied for fourth in the positives, but Michelle beats Rick by nine points in those who wouldn't vote for them.

Rick Perry comes in sixth in the popularity poll, but still beats Mitt Romney by more than Mitt beat last place Huntsman! Rick also beats Mitt by 20 points in the "Ain't no way I'm voting for him" category.

Mitt Romney came in next to last in the popularity poll and number three in the "snowflake's chance in Hades" poll.

Long story short: Cain/Gingrich or Gingrich/Cain looks like the strongest ticket, but it's still early in the primary process and plenty of time for missteps, miscues and October surprises.

Hang on, it still could be a bumpy ride!

Mitt Romney for President? Say it Ain't So!

Go ahead: Ask Mitt anything because he'll tell you just what you want to hear
Graphic c/o ExposeMittRomney.com

Cross-posted at the Left Coast Rebel

The truth hurts. Mitt Romney stinks and is no conservative. And it's not that I am still debating whether he is a liberal or a Country-Club republican; it's that he simply stands for nothing and says whatever needs to be said to whatever group wants to hear.

And you know where standing for nothing gets us during these perilous times: more, more, more socialism like we see today. It is the path that Washington has thrust upon the nation and someone with no convictions or core will simply continue that trajectory.

This is something that us Tea Partiers (and indies, libertarians and conservatives) fear the most about the man: unlike Reagan and the tea party candidates elected last year, he has no core.

On this note, RedState's head cheese Eric Erickson lists most of the reasons that have brought us to this conclusion, writing:

Should Mitt Romney win the Presidency, conservatives will find this pattern play out repeatedly. Romney will head in a direction conservatives do not like and they will bitch and moan repeatedly and maybe, just maybe, he’ll part his hair in their direction.

Scathing.

More:

Mitt Romney is not the George W. Bush of 2012 — he is the Harriet Miers of 2012, only conservative because a few conservative grand pooh-bahs tell us Mitt Romney is conservative and for no other reason.

That is precisely why Mitt Romney will not win in 2012. But no worry, once he loses, Republican establishment types will blame conservatives for not doing enough for Mitt Romney, never mind that Mitt Romney has never been able to sell himself to more than 25% of the GOP voters. It’s not his fault though, it is the 75%’s fault.

The worst of it. Meet Mitt running for president, aka Mitt Inc.:

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man.

I’ve been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself. You want him to be tough? He’ll be tough. You want him to be sensitive? He’ll be sensitive. You want him to be for killing the unborn? He’ll go all in on abortion rights until he wants to run for an office where it is not in his advantage.

But, something that I disagree with:

Conservatism is already dying. Republicans on Capitol Hill are about to raise taxes on the American people with this Super Committee, but they’ll say they are just “raising revenue,” not taxes. Conservatives will give them a pass as they have on virtually every other major issue. Conservatives keep giving passes to people who shouldn’t be given passes because conservative in Washington have been there so long, they’d much rather get invited to the cocktail parties and avoid awkward encounters.

I don't think that conservatism is dying. In fact, the ethos of self reliance, responsibility, the abundance of free markets and the founding concepts of this nation (like the banner at the top of this site) have never been more desired by the public. It's the republican party that is dying (and has been since the end of Reagan's presidency). There's is a big difference: The republican party is not conservatism. If anything (as you see with leadership such as statist John Boehner and the other clowns in leadership positions), the party has done almost irreversible damage to the conservative political cause. For they tell conservative America what they want to hear (to get elected) then do the precise opposite and offer the nation no true alternative to the socialist democrats.

In other words, the legacy of "conservative" George W. Bush.

Erickson sees this too:

Washington, D.C. conservatives will also rally around Mitt Romney, just as they kept doing over and over and over with George W. Bush even after steel tariffs in Pennsylvania, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the GM Bailout, and TARP. At some point the public will cease taking conservatives seriously when the most prominent conservatives — those in Washington who pose as the faces, voices, and writers of the conservative movement at large, keep throwing their lot in with a guy who keeps selling out the very principles conservatives claim to hold dear.

Unfortunately, Erickson's conclusion is laughable at best:

I’m starting to think I need to walk it back on my rejection of Jon Huntsman. Because I’m starting to think even he would be more faithful in his conservative convictions than Mitt Romney.

Then again, he may have a point: perhaps even John Huntsman would be more faithful in his convictions than Mitt Romney. And that is truly pathetic.

Check out NotMittRomney.com and spread the word. Head over to RightKlik for more on the pretzel candidate.

Via Memeorandum.

The Poetry Corner - Jon Huntsman Edition

Jon Huntsman was a candidate,
His campaign was quite brisk.
Four million dollars later and
he's just an "asterisk".

-Proof, Inspired by R.S. McCain

This Last Week's Poll

This Last Week's Poll: Who "Won" tonight's Republican Debate?

Mitt Romney (10%)

Michele Bachmann (0%)

Herman Cain (16%)

Newt Gingrich (6%)

Rick Perry (33%)

Jon Huntsman (0%)

Ron Paul (30%)

Rick Santorum (3%)

I suspect that some of the votes were for candidates you liked and not necessarily whom you thought actually won the debate. (And you know who you are!) That's okay. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion!

Multiple choices and Obama's crack budget office accountants may account for totals greater than 100%

Thank you for your participation!
Not a scientific poll. Respondents are self selecting. Questions are drawn from fortune cookies, hieroglyphics and tomorrow’s New York Times.

Please make your opinion known in this week's poll.

(Fill in the blank) Is Our Only Hope

There’s an unfortunate trend that seems to be making the rounds in conservative circles: “(Fill in the blank) Is Our Only Hope”. I noticed it to some degree in the last presidential race, but the intensity of the desire to replace Barack Obama in the White House in 2012 has exacerbated the trend.
If you are talking policy with these people, you get along famously. You agree on what Barack is doing wrong, you agree on what the next president should do to correct it, and then you discuss who that might be. Then the friction starts.

You find out who the (Fill in the blank) Is Our Only Hope crowd is, when you start criticizing their candidate. Now I have, in the past, and some in the not too distant past, criticized Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and Mike Romney for their obvious (to me) shortcomings as a candidate. I’m sure I will criticize others and some I will criticize again. Our common end game is that “A Conservative in the White House Is Our Only Hope”. It is early in the primary process. There is no clear front runner yet.

I am not suggesting that we should aim for some “compromise candidate” who will not stand on principle. What I am saying is that the candidate we end up with may not be perfect, or our ideal, but, is he or she a conservative who will lead the nation back to fiscal and Constitutional soundness?

A lot of what I hear from the (Fill in the blank) Is Our Only Hope crowd sounds an awful lot like people setting themselves up for disillusionment if their candidate is not the standard bearer in 2012.

During the primary season, advocate vigorously for whomever you believe to be the best and the brightest. But, if that person should be eliminated from the contest, by others who feel as strong or more strongly than you, but disagree on the man (or woman) or the positions they hold, don’t lose sight of the larger objective:

A Conservative in the White House.

Don’t become so invested in any one person that you cannot vie for the genuine hope and change so badly needed by America today. Beating Barack Obama in 2012 ought to be a cakewalk, but only if we select the right candidate. That’s what the primaries are for. Consider the fact that (Fill in the blank) may not be our Only hope. You may believe it sincerely, but sincerity doesn’t make it so. Just ask Harold Camping. He sincerely believed the world would come to an end last month. He was sincerely wrong. It may not be the end of the world if Obama is reelected, but you can certainly see it from there!

Me? I don’t have an “only hope” candidate yet. Ask me again next June…

Steve Poizner at CPAC