Mitt Romney--50,000 Facebook friends.

Sarah Palin? 450,000 Facebook friends.

The disparity is of course, not a good predictor of who gets to be the Republican party nominee for 2012.

Its an interesting contrast and presents an interesting question--what wins an election most?

Even months after the election, I still don't understand why some people voted for Obama. A neighbor reports that his libertarian boss voted for Obama, and then went out and bought an evil black gun the next day...just in case. Wild and wacky stuff as Johnny would say.

I'm bearish on Sarah Palin because frankly, I think Obama has used up the country's willingness to elect a symbol. That may be premature, but consider that if Palin has a shot at the Presidency, it means that Obama failed, and failed miserably. The recriminations will be harsh to say the least. Americans may find themselves in the mood for an economic Eisenhower--someone with the resume and clear ability to lead the country in dangerous times.

That's right up Romney street.

On the other hand, if Obama, but some miracle I don't have the imagination to conceive, rights the wreck of the world economy, calms the troubled international waters and saves us from the doomsday of global warming, then style will be where its at in 2016, and Palin will be young enough and prepared enough to present a very solid candidacy.

Nice to have a queen and a bishop in the game.

Obama is now "the Man."

Senior Brandon Miller wore a shirt with the words, "Hitler gave great speeches, too" above a picture of Obama.

Jim Jones was also a social activist and community organizer.

The lefties will dismiss this as junior Republicans at play, but they are whistling past the graveyard. Adolescents have a well-developed sense that the adults in their lives are actively manipulating them (which of course is true). The fawning coverage of Obama and perhaps more importantly, the emphasis on his historical character makes their antennae twitch and triggers the rebellion instinct.

Its an interesting dynamic, because its precisely opposite of what I experienced during the Reagan era. The establishment view dismissed Reagan as unserious and/or dangerous, and though its likely I didn't appreciate the contradiction, I could appreciate the panic. I was attracted to Reagan specifically because he stood against the establishment.

Opposite, but the same--a reaction against establishment propaganda.

I' ve been gratified by the comments some of you have seen fit to leave on the last post. I even had a neighbor and reader of this blog come to my door last night and ask me if I was serious and whether I couldn't see my way clear to keep going. Well, I did say I'd be part-time, so here's some thoughts I had percolating after last nights dog and pony show.

Updated today....

Have you ever had "that" dream? You know, the one where you are nude in a public place. I've had the dream and so have a lot of other people but last night it came true for Bobby Jindal. He's known for months that he was going to give the Republic response to the State of the Union address and yet when the moment came, he looked like Jay Leno ambushed him on the street to ask him who the Vice President is. A bad performance he could have survived, but this? This was weird.

Jindal is, but all accounts, smart, principled, conservative, in tune with middle-American values, and has a serendipitous skin tone for the times. That might get you to Hollywood, but it won't get you into the final twelve. Jindal is looking like Sanjaya instead of David Cook.

He could get better with coaching, but the reality is you can't teach star quality.

When I heard that Mitt Romney won the CPAC poll, but first instinct was to say, "big deal." He's won it before--twice; with little predictive effect. The reasons for that have been attributed to deck-stacking by Romney people and just the simple fact that the people who attend CPAC aren't terribly representative of Republican primary voters. Yet, something about this particular win kept nagging at me.

Unlike the past couple of years, this CPAC poll isn't strategic in the sense of someone's primary campaign. Jindal and Palin didn't even show, which I suspect was more about not appearing too eager than apathy. David Mark at Politico reflects one way of look at it.

With no unifying Republican figure to rally around after the desultory 2008 elections, the straw poll results reflect tensions among conservatives about how best to oppose the Obama Administration’s agenda – through openly wishing for failure, a sentiment voiced recently by talk show host Rush Limbaugh, or working with the new president at a time when the American public seek a larger role for government amid the deepening recession.

The tension at CPAC must be incredible--all those differing ideas about the 2nd amendment, tax policy, freedom of speech, foreign policy and global warming? What a hell hole!

Yeah, not so much.

What we were really seeing in the fractionalized vote was pre-season betting.

Trim handsome guy, blonde wife, adopted Chinese daughter. Your basic Utah yuppie ideal-->

I've been rather surprised at Huntsman's growing national profile, but since I live in Utah, perhaps I can shed some light on the dynamics of Utah politics and Huntsman place in it all.

Conservatism is cultural in this state, which means that its absorbed by osmosis rather than active intellectual inquiry. Every candidate for higher office establishes their bona fides the same way; faith, family, business success. Rarely do you encounter a issue based race as we saw in Utah 3rd district in 2006 when immigration almost toppled former Congressman Cannon.

Huntsman's political success in Utah has been entirely due to those factors. His family is very well connected to the Mormon church's dynastic families. His maternal grandfather was an apostle of the church, its highest priesthood office. More than one sibling is married into the Hyrum Smith line of descendents. His father is on of the most famous Mormon industrialists in the country and extremely well-regarded in a state that respects that kind of success. Moreover, Huntsman presents a kind of Utah ideal of clean-cut good looks and quiet eloquence, signaling both education and humility.

In short--he looks the part.

Yet Huntsman Jr. is hardly a movement conservative. Cahnman's observation that he's a lot like Romney (or how Romney used to be) is pretty much on the mark. Huntsman Jr. conservatism is cultural, just like almost everyone else in Utah's is, so his political style is pragmatic rather than ideological. He gets by in Utah because with a very conservative legislature in place, his range of action is very limited. Nevertheless, its his work around the margins that bears notice for those of us who pay attention to such things.

Here's the real problem though--Jon Huntsman Jr. is like a faithful husband with an attractive secretary. His wife's trust gives him the latitude to work with a potential rival for his affections. That describes Huntsman relationship with the conservative base in Utah, but as you might imagine, it doesn't translate to the national level.

As a Mormon, from Utah, with liberal stains on his collar, he'd have virtually no chance of establishing the kind of trust with the base that he'd have to have to make his brand of politics work on the national level. In Utah it may be about demographics, but nationally its a clear cut ideological battle.

The "third way" of Republicanism is a mirage created in the Utah desert.

cross-posted at NextRight

Mick cites Mitt:

the Obama administration was wrong to initially defend the bonuses

I don't care about grammar. English doesn't care about grammar. Grammar is a means to an end. The end is clarity with euphony. If infinitive splitting serves that end, well fine, but it rarely does. "To boldly go" well emulates the plonking bathos of Star Trek and works in context, but "boldly to go" is better both for euphony and emphasis. English is not a prescriptive language and Shakespeare is the least prescriptive of writers, yet he split an infinitive but once and that was a special case.

I do not prohibit split infinitives; I prohibit dull language. We use language to think; dull language, dull thought. Keep your tools sharp. I am not that purist of whom the revered Raymond Chandler wrote:

By the way, would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write in a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss-waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will remain split..

Gallup does some polling on the prospects of various well-known Republican presidential hopefuls.

Keeping a low profile seems to have done Huckabee and Romney some good--both have high favorables and low unfavorables--Huckabees being slightly better on both fronts. Sarah Palin on the other hand, seems to benefited from being everywhere. Her book is number one and its not even been released yet (I've got my copy back-ordered from Amazon...).

Huckabee and Romney are too terribly surprising since they worked hard and spent a lot of time and money developing credibility with the public during the Republican primaries. The impression lingers, and a low profile lets tempers cool while events lead people to reconsider. Palin on the other hand, while indisputably a star, has to work hard to overcome the high negatives she acquired (with a lot of help from the left who are in mortal fear of her...). She seems to be on track, with numbers identical to that of Romney.

At least another 18 months before everyone squats in the blocks again, but if the current environment persists, we could see a fascinating dynamic emerging.

If you're an Evangelical voter, who do you like? Palin or Huckabee?

If you're a more traditional Republican voters, more concerned about fiscal issues (and who won't be?), how do you like Romney now?

Predicting what the winning issue is going to be two and three years out is at minimum risky and quite possibly foolish, but its a pretty big hole the Democrats have dug and its not going to get filled in within a year or even two or three. Romney will likely find a more amenable political environment, while Huckabee and Palin find it less to their liking.

It leaves the door open to other candidates with solid fiscal credentials and acceptable conservative bona fides. Haley Barbour has by most accounts, been an excellent governor. He's smart, well-spoken, charming and connected.

Ask me again next year, but right now I'd say that Barbour and Romney--guys with a track record of actually doing things (successfully) are the ones to watch.

When it comes to political calumny, nobody does it better than Mike Huckabee. Political attacks on the character of one's opponents are both effective and highly risky. Most leave it to surrogates to do the dirty work, allowing them to maintain a statesmanlike facade, but Huckabee does his own knife work.

“Some of the people who had excoriated me and really been very dismissive of me for views that I had taken, and labeled me anything from a populist to an ignoramus — the same people have been very defensive [of] and laudatory to Sarah Palin,” Huckabee noted, adding that he’d invited her to appear on his weekly Fox show but “could never get any contact.”

“I’m glad she’s getting the props — I know I’m not nearly as attractive,” he said with a guileless grin.

We know Huckabee well enough now to understand that this is part of his persona--he smarts from not being taken seriously. He resents the popular kids (Romney, Palin). But the real genius here is that Huckabee has taken what might otherwise be considered a personal failing, as turned into a political asset--voters who spend their lives similarly envious of their betters can identify with him, and his success is their success.

And he's almost subtle enough to carry it off--almost.

As Joe and Barack discovered, you attack Sarah at your own risk. Condescend, and you appear to be a boorish misogynist. As Democrats, The Obama team could always find liberal harpies to do their dirty work, but Huckabee has no similar option--I can't even imagine a conservative woman capable of it.

Huckabee has a huge problem with Sarah Palin--they both appeal to the same constituencies, and Palin is vastly more attractive, and not just physically. His polls are still solid, but at this point they are largely generic. When it comes right down to it, Huckabee is going to have a very difficult time raising money, because it will always make more sense to hand the check over to Palin.

Its probably risky at this point to make this call, but I suspect Huckabee will move forward on the basis that Palin could make a mistake, but if he doesn't win Iowa outright, he'll be done.

A lightly-sourced article in Daily Finance has cast doubts on the profitability of Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue" for Harper Collins.

If Palin's advance is as high as $5 million, then HarperCollins wlll need to sell more than 400,000 copies of Going Rogue to cover the advance and expenses for marketing and overhead.

The article produces no evidence to suggest that the book won't see at least that many. There are already 40,000 pre-order at Amazon (mine among them...).

I don't generally waste my time with political autobiographies, because politicians have so much to protect, its rather silly to except a candid memoir. Bill Clinton's massive tome sits on my library shelf unread--a gift used to shim a broken couch rather than for its intended purpose of edifying me into the liberal fold.

Palin's book reminds me of the Monty Python introduction, "...and now for something completely different.." She in naturally candid and at this point in her career, she doesn't owe anything to anyone. Unlike say, Joe Biden or Barack Obama--Sarah Palin's public image isn't the result of political myth-making. She is that rare individual who has achieved political success as a natural outgrowth of her own identity and experience.

Just as importantly, she doesn't owe anything to anyone. She's left Alaska politics behind, and didn't spend long enough in office to have a legacy she needs to defend. She came to national attention in a failed candidacy, so she doesn't have to protect anything there either.

On the other hand, she is running for high political office, so some gilding is to be expected, but far less than we would see for a politician trying to protect a legacy.

A book like this has the potential to cross over into reader constituencies others never would. The absolutely panicked reaction of the left to her selection as McCain's running mate illustrates the point--she appeals. Every woman I know went absolutely ga-ga over her because unlike say--Hillary Clinton, the ladies could identify with her.

A lot of people who would never even buy a book by a politician are going to buy hers, which is why a mainstream publisher like Harper picked up the publication rights. No one really expects her book to sell along partisan lines because there is just as much curiosity about her on the left as there is on the right. Palin is in her mid-forties--she can be expected to be a political force for a couple of decades at least. It pays to know your enemy.

No less than three books about Sarah Palin are due to be published at the same time--including a parody. For all the bad-mouthing, a lot of people are hitching their wagons to this particular engine

Lindsey Graham was just reelected last year, which is lucky for him, because if he were up for election next year, he'd likely lose in a big way.

The Charleston County Republican Party on Monday censured the South Carolina senator for his continued work with Democrats on "cap and trade" legislation and other legislation the GOP disagrees with. One Republican leader in Charleston County told Associated Press that while Graham has often worked with Democrats in Congress, the senator's work on global-warming legislation is "the last straw."

Two new polls show him in terminal free-fall.

With five years to go in his term, he has plenty of time to redeem himself, but the importance of this development is how it contradicts the Democrat narrative about their "mandate". Republicans and blue dog Democrats are going to have their backbones stiffened by this kind of public reaction.

Mitt Romney opening new corporate headquarters in Provo, Utah.-->

Dan Riehl is highly complimentary of Sarah Palin's mastery of new media to become--in his words, Obama's chief antagonist on the right.

The smartest people in the room tend to be early adapters. More than that, they tend to be those that master and successfully exploit the latest of the greatest, the newest of the new. Sarah Palin is the unchallenged, though not unopposed, champion in that regard on the Right for now.

A little more research on Dan's part might have resulted in a different kind of post. Every politician is tweeting and facebooking these days, and Palin's use of these technologies is simply routine at this point.

What is not routine is that Sarah Palin actually writes her own Facebook postings, and that is the extraordinary element of Sarah Palin's political trajectory.

Sarah Palin doesn't fear the electorate.

Contrast that to just about every other politician, including 'my guy' Mitt Romney. I like the way Dan phrased this.

Romney and others stroll halfway down Olympus to write an oped for the Wall Street Journal once in a while, Palin is using a fan blog, Facebook and Twitter to feed and grow her significant influence across the Right on-line.

The conventional wisdom has always been to "stay on message". Presidential campaigns are carefully crafted image-making enterprises, and one must be extremely careful not to disrupt that illusion, or suffer the consequences. This is generally harder for Democrats since their coalition of interest groups is so diverse and feature such contradictory objectives, but its no picnic for Republicans either. Social conservatives are not necessarily fiscal conservatives, and fiscal conservatives are frequently libertarian in their social perspectives.

Sarah Palin's advantage--and its enormous, is that she doesn't have to learn a part--she is the part. In effect, Sarah Palin is a natural distillation of the Reagan coalition, a fiscal and social conservative who says the right thing from instinct rather than coaching. She can post on Facebook with little fear that she'll reveal her inner socialist.

Palin is authentic--true political gold, and it wouldn't matter if she still wrote letters long-hand.

It will be a very interesting next three years...

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post pontificating on the reasons Barack Obama would not and could not emulate Bill Clinton in how the latter dealt with the loss of Congress to the Republicans in his first mid-term election.

Nothing in Barack Obama's history has every prepared him to doubt himself, to consider the possibility that his opinions had nothing short of divine approval.

Democrats don't tell black men that they're wrong.

Today, Barack Obama confirmed me as a fine judge of men.

Obama said, "folks in Washington are in a little bit of a frenzy" over Republican Scott Brown's election to the seat held by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, which has ended the president's 60-seat supermajority in the chamber. But the president vowed to keep battling for health care reform, even as he bluntly conceded that he's facing major roadblocks.

"Now, we've gotten pretty far down the road, but I have to admit, we've run into a bit of a buzzsaw along the way," Obama said. "The long process of getting things done runs headlong into the special interests, their armies of lobbyists and partisan politics aimed at exploiting fears instead of getting things done."

No "the era of big government is over" here, and I doubt we'll hear anything like that during the State of the Union.

Instead we get defiance and an enemies list (although I doubt he uses yellow legal pads...).

This is not going to end well.

[Every presidential election is described as the most important ever, and in truth, all of them have significant implications for the country in some way or another. After more than thirty years, we are still feeling the effects of the Carter administration policies. There is a direct line between the war in Afghanistan and Carter's efforts to arm the mujaheddin.

I invite comment, and particularly emulation within other blogs for the simple reason that we are all better off discussing this among ourselves that allowing the excretable state media to filter our information. Its time for citizens to truly exercise their franchise--first by informing themselves. This is the first in the series...]

Some may be surprised to see Jeb Bush included in a 2012 roster of candidates for the Republican nomination, but after a long period of near public invisibility, he’s been much more politically active lately, lending his considerable political influence to his preferred candidates in Florida and venturing out to Washington and a broadcast network interview with Matt (knee-toucher) Lauer.

Its my fault government doesn't work.

"You know what I think would actually make a difference, Michael? I think if everybody here -- excuse all the members of the press who are here -- if everybody here turned off your CNN, your Fox, your blogs," Obama said, before being interrupted by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, who piped up, "And MSNBC!"

Obama, appropriately reminded of the network with shows more friendly to liberals, continued, "Just turn off the TV -- MSNBC, blogs -- and just go talk to folks out there, instead of being in this echo chamber where the topic is constantly politics. ... It is much more difficult to get a conversation focused on how are we going to help people than a conversation about how is this going to help or hurt somebody politically."

I know I shouldn't be shocked anymore at the things that Obama says in public, but Holy Crap! Did he really just say that the government doesn't work because it's being held accountable by the people (until someone starts paying me to do this, its pretty safe to say that I'm people, rather than media...)?

There have been a lot of jokes made about Obama's narcissism but if you're a Democrat elected official, it has to be dawning on you that he does not give a crap about the party of any of them, just so long as he personally gets what he wants. This particular exchange was with Sen Mike Bennet (D-CO), but he made a similar impression on Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) who begged him to move to the center.

A lot of people have made comparisons between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter, who up until now has been conceded to be the worst American President in living memory by all but the most die-hard liberals. Yet what seemed like mere hyperbole is solidifying into surprising parallels. Both Carter and Obama suffer from a debilitating absence of personal doubt. Obama is now starting to see the same kind of inter-party revolt that Carter did. What do we still need to make this Ground Hog day?

Ted Kennedy started contemplating a run at Carter when polls showed Democrats preferred him 5-3. When he actually threw his hat in the ring, the polls showed they liked Ted 2-1 over Carter, in spite of the fact that Carter hadn't let anyone drown in his car while he saved his own ass.

We might consider taking up a collection for some polls asking Democrats how much better they'd like Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama at this point. Hillary is often a stranger to the truth, but I don't think she's ever been guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

[This is the second in a series evaluating potential candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

As with the other articles, I invite my fellows here at Anatreptic to append their comments directly to the article, while readers may contribute their insights in the comment section. You can read the first article in the series (about Jeb Bush) here.]

Every nomination process has its established figures and me-too candidates. Mike Huckabee certainly fell into the later category in the 2008 presidential nomination process. Although a former governor, Huckabee didn't have a national reputation, didn't have any money and didn't have a chance when he entered the race. He shocked everyone by winning the Iowa primaries, perhaps Mitt Romney more than the rest of us. The only one who wasn't shocked was Mike Huckabee and his staff and close allies. They understood the organization power represented in the Evangelical congregations dotting the Iowa landscape, and leveraged it with Huckabee's own, unassailable Evangelical credentials.

I mentioned the possibility of a primary challenge a little while back.

Hillary make be well-disposed towards taking the risk. If Obama runs and loses, it might well be another eight years before she gets another chance, and she'll be in her early seventies at that point. Its tough for a man to run at that age, much less a woman, and a decade gives rise to a whole new crop of pretenders to the throne. Challenging Obama for the nomination in 2012 might be her last, best chance to try to win the big chair.

I have no special prophetic powers, but I can recognize political opportunity as well as say--Evan Bayh.

In his statement, Bayh, who won the seat to the Senate in 1998, seemed to attribute his decision to the bitter partisan divides that have dominated Congress in recent years, though he praised his colleagues as hard workers devoting to serving the public.

“My decision should not be interpreted for more than it is, a very difficult, deeply personal one,” Bayh’s statement said.

“I am an executive at heart. I value my independence. I am not motivated by strident partisanship or ideology.”

Spend time with the family, yadda, yadda, yadda. Its noteworthy that Bayh is talking about a bitter partisan divide in a Congress totally dominated by Democrats, so either he is telegraphing something about next year's Congress, or he is referring to bitter partisanship within the Jackass party itself.

That aside--read the last sentence. Sounds well, presidential, doesn't it, and a casual slap against the current occupant of the White House?

Bayh's recent attempt to win the nomination fizzled early and fast. I saw him addressing a small group on C-SPAN and clearly not saying anything they wanted to hear. I expect that he thinks he'll find a different reception on the next go around.

This is a short riff on Mick's fine summary of Sarah Palin's prospects a couple of posts ago. I agree with most of it, but let me point up where I differ:

1. Polls that show a heavy preponderance of opinion against her qualifications aren't worth the paper of the pollsters' contracts with the liberal clientele whom the polls are designed (literally designed) to please; it's too far out yet, yes she's still learning, simple polls in match-ups against Obama show her in the ball-park with Huckabee and Romney and she's far more experienced on the national stage now and is battle hardened. Above all she connects. I'll say it again: she connects.

2. Not only would Obama lose against Palin, I assert, but he'd lose against Levi Johnston. Almost the entire political spectrum gets it that Obama is not Presidential timber and, contra Mick, incumbency is a ball and chain right now not a booster rocket.

To put it another way, Obama is a dead parrot:

Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned!
Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?
Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.
Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour 
ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.
Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.………
Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e 
rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

3. Mick doubts that Palin can "distinguish between a viable strategy and a half-baked idea". Well maybe, but she's been a successful sportswoman, businesswoman, mother, wife, mayor, governor, author and public speaker on the national stage. Also she's a real American and has American values that are both right and timely. She gets it and she connects. So that's a start.

Mostly I'm with Mick on all this, but the relevant comparison isn't with Obama, it's with Romney. As I said before, my heart says Palin, my head says Romney/Palin. I really like Romney and Scott Brown's endorsement of Romney at CPAC yesterday is beyond price. Romney's speech was pretty good too. But America is at a crossroads and history is moving very fast now. It may yet be that Palin is the transformative leader for the time, tho Romney be more competent, more "qualified".

On Mark On Mick On Palin:

I'm not as quick as Mark is to dismiss the polls on Palin's approval/disapproval ratings. I've had enough anecdotal evidence to help me believe that they are largely accurate. The real question isn't whether the poll is accurate, but whether the perception is accurate. Mitt Romney is a case in point. As many know, Romney was accosted on an outbound flight from Vancouver. His behavior is described as entirely appropriate from beginning to end. Those who know Romney--like the thousands who had personal contact with when he headed up SLOC in the late 90s, are not in the least bit surprised by this. Everyone I know who knew him, always described him as an extremely thoughtful and considerate man--a true gentleman. Nevertheless, his political enemies have succeeded in creating an alternate bizarro Romney characterization in the public mind, but as time passes, Romney true character is displacing the caricature. John Edwards experienced the same process--his private character eventually became his public character.

Sarah Palin is going through the exact same process, but rather than finding out that the public perception was incorrect, Americans appear to be confirming their initial perceptions--nice lady, admirable lady, pretty lady, you betcha. Genius? Not so much. Let's wait another year and see if that changes.

As for Obama's reelection prospects--Romney wisely pointed out that the economy will in fact recover, and it won't have much to do with Mr. Obama, who turned an ordinary recession into a Great one. The point is well-taken--things will change between now and November 2012. A cardinal rule of sales and politics is that fear is a better motivator than profit. McCain, as bad a candidate as he was, was still doing pretty well until the bottom fell out of banking. In the ensuing tumult, Obama appeared to be the better bet for a return to stability. McCain sank without a trace.

With this in mind, consider two scenarios--Palin v. Obama is a period of relative stability and Palin v. Obama in a period of tumult and crisis. Presidents always benefit from stability--people prefer the devil they know. If there had been no Iranian hostage crisis, Carter would have won a second term. In a crisis, its really up to the challenger to exude superior leadership qualities. Reagan exuded leadership but the rarely mentioned fact of his landslide victory over Carter was that he won a bare plurality of the popular vote--50.7%

Palin is no Reagan, who in additional to his remarkable charm and confidence, was a guy who knew his stuff. Its just my opinion of course, but Mark's comments suggested that I needed to clarify my thought process somewhat better than I initially did.

On Mark's final point--yes, Palin "gets it", and while that is a major asset to any politician in an election campaign, its half-a-loaf when it comes to governance. 'Getting it' means that you know how to sell your agenda to the public, but first you have to formulate the right policies. Obama famously contrasted McCain's experience with his superior judgment, fooling a good many Americans who don't know that you can't have one without the other. Palin is simply no combat veteran when it comes to problem-solving. Give me the old, battle-scarred sergeant to lead me into battle every time.

Love ya Mark. You are more fun that a barrel of monkeys.

DAVE'S COMMENTS: I'm with Mick on Palin's chances against Obama in 2012 - it isn't 2010. Just like 2010 isn't 2008. If Republicans make great gains this year, they may have enough time to screw things up for 2012 (or at least be painted that way).

When Palin was nominated VP, I didn't think she was qualified/experienced to be President. That was the beauty of her selection - if she wasn't qualified, what did that say about Obama? Ironically, the more conservatives got to know her the better we thought she would be than McCain - what's that say about our political process?

But Mark points out the proper comparison. Palin vs. Romney. As long as there is an extremely competent executive option, such as Romney, I'll choose that first.

Mark on Dave on Mick on Mark on Mick on Palin:

I just needed to write that. That is all!

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Romney-Palin, 2012", so I'm glad that Palin seems open to it. Looks, fertility, life experience, sunniness, energy .... versus what? Obama/Biden - desiccated phonies with no experience of business or middle America who apologize for America's past and exude pessimism about America's future; the culture of life v the culture of death.

Bring it on.

Romneycare and Obamacare are the same thing and that thing is socialism. "The individual mandate", ie compulsory health insurance, is an unconstitutional outrage.

Now when you're a conservative governor of a lib-leaning state it's pretty tough to stay ideologically pure, but that's not the standard here. There are some lines that shouldn't be crossed.

Romneycare does have mitigation. There's a profound difference between a state law and a federal law and Romneycare is a somewhat coherent, bi-partisan expression of the will of the voters of Massachusetts rather than the stinking crap sandwich with which Obama is choking an unwilling America, but there's no getting round the point that Romney implemented a technocratic solution to a problem that is primarily and rightly ideological. Moreover judged by technocratic criteria of medical provision and economy, Romneycare run by Deval Patrick and the Democrats is an utter flop:

The system is riddled with waste, and quality of care is uneven. Government health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid threaten future generations with an enormous burden of debt and taxes. Given these pressures, the temptation for a quick fix is understandable.

But, as Massachusetts has shown us, mandating insurance, restricting individual choice, expanding subsidies, and increasing government control isn’t going to solve those problems. A mandate imposes a substantial cost in terms of individual choice but is almost certainly unenforceable and will not achieve its goal of universal coverage. Subsidies may increase coverage, but will almost always cost more than projected and will impose substantial costs on taxpayers. Increased regulations will drive up costs and limit consumer choice.

The answer to controlling health care costs and increasing access to care lies with giving consumers more control over their health care spending while increasing competition in the health care marketplace - not in mandates, subsidies, and regulation. That is the lesson we should be drawing from the failure of RomneyCare.

Adamscare by the way is: No government involvement in healthcare other than as a safety net for children and those who put themselves at risk for the public good. The most obvious outcome will be healthier, happier, richer citizens, but the most satisfying outcome will be that liberals will no longer get to feel good about themselves by giving away my money.

So where does this leave Romney? Is he viable? Yes he is. He's a strong executive when America is sick from communityorganizerocracy, the swing voter doesn't care so much about ideology and every candidate has major difficulties in their record. Those fade if the candidate looks electorally attractive at the national level.