Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Herman Cain, Herman Cain, Herman Cain.

Mitt Romney's Big Political Problem

"I think it is far too early to start placing odds on any of the major would-be nominees, and
Romney does strike me as a serious contender. Yet there is no doubt that Romney has a very serious problem. Sixty years ago, he would have been an easy, obvious choice for the Republican nomination. However, time has passed and the balance of power in the GOP has shifted decisively, leaving the Northeastern wing of the party on the outside looking in. That is Mitt Romney’s big political problem." Jay Cost

When Huck started playing Cat Scratch Fever with wild man Ted Nugent as the intro to his announcement, I was pretty sure he was a "no".

I think it's pretty clear that if we really want a radical change and reduction in government, we're going to have to go with the most anti-government candidate running. That leaves the libertarians, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

I don't agree with libertarians on some issues, especially foreign policy. But I don't think either of them would care one wit about telling the K Street lobbyists that they need to get real jobs. The time for them and their clients pigging out at the public trough is over.

Unfortunately, I don't believe either can win the Republican nomination, let alone the general election.

Let see what our fine old buddy Chris Matthews says, even before the Huckster bailed.

It's also a good day for Palin, should she decide to run.

Wasn't a big fan of a Huck run, and am more than fine with his decision not to. I like him, like his show, think he's great, but he wasn't my pick for president.

Absolutely no Romney. That man is a ridiculous joke, a hold-over from the old way and the old playbook (pre-'08). Time for someone new, someone who gets it. Someone not wishy-washy, which way's the wind blowing, think I'll be a republican today, oh, you don't like my view on [fill in the blank]--no problem! I have a new one based on the latest polls, and all that big-government, pro-government mandate, pro-amnesty, pro-abortion stuff . . . just forget all that, eh?

Don't want T-Paw or Daniels, either. Ryan's my pick (or maybe Sarah), and if he doesn't run (looks more and more like he'll run for senate instead), then I'll vote for whomever is not BO. Just please, America, don't make that person Ron Paul.

Who Benefits If Huckabee Doesn’t Run?
Nate Silver

"The RCP average for Palin/Huckabee is 35.3% and for Romney it is 18.8%. This result is perfectly in line with the 33%-40% that the Palin/Huckabee support level has been running at for months as set out previously."

"Firstly Palin's result is within the normal margin of error and could be 16% but if we take it at face value we find the Huckabee/Palin support at 31%. What has happened to affect this is the 5% of support for Bachman who is the current media darling (this changes almost daily). It would be expected that her 5% has come from Palin's support or, to put it another way, if she had not announced an interest in running the majority of her support would go to Palin.

Thus according to the Gallup poll, the forces represented by Huckabee/Palin Bachman garner 36% whereas Romney's support has fallen from 18.8% to 15%. It is clear, as poll after poll has consistently shown that the grass roots wants a true conservative candidate.

In reality Bachman stands no chance whatsoever to win the nomination. The above results show it is to be decided by what Mike Huckabee does. the Gallup analysis shows that if he does not run his supporters would go, in the main to Palin and she and Romney would be running neck and neck."

M. Joseph Sheppard

If we could only get Ron Paul to do the same. Not least of all because of the antics of his supporters. Actually, as reasons go, its right there on top. Not that RP is any prize even without them. It isn't that all of his ideas are bad, its that he/they manages smack their tar-brush of crazy on even the ones that are good. Never have so many done so much to alienate anyone and everyone that might be even a little sympathetic to their views. Those folks couldn't sell water in the desert.

I know this isn't a Ron Paul thread, but since Huck has now denied me the pleasure of ripping on him, well dammit, I am going to dump on someone.

Unfortunately, with the exit of Huckabee from the potential Presidential pool, there doesn't seem to be any other rock-solid supporter of the FairTax as a tax reform proposal (Repeal of 16th Amendment, Elimination of Personal, Corporate, FICA, Gift & Estate Taxes, and instituting an Inclusive National Sales tax).

I would have enjoyed seeing a Gingrich-Huckabee ticket. It would have been nice to have both the historical perspective of Gingrich and the social/moral perspective of Huckabee under one roof.

Unless some unsung breakout Conservative / TEA Party star comes out of the woodwork, I think it likely we're going to end up seeing a Romney-Daniels or a Romney-Pawlenty ticket. Neither Pawlenty nor Daniels have enough star-power to get to the top on their own. Trump won't play well with others, and I don't think that Gingrich can rise to the top without the support of a strong social Conservative on the ticket. Maybe a Romney-Perry ticket or a Gingrich-Perry ticket could work, if Perry is willing to accept the VP slot if asked.

As for the more minor candidates: Ron Paul, who is a wonderful candidate, will be treated as a pariah and dismissed as a nut for his historical/Constitutional/nigh-isolationist positions. Santorum will be savaged by the MSM like he was in his last Senate bid. Herman Cain could be great, but he won't be electable after Obama; too much of the "older" Republican voters won't tolerate a "Black Conservative" because they can't comprehend it (I've seen it happen in elections and it's ugly to watch, because that's the ONLY reason why they don't vote for the candidate).

Hopefully a strong Conservative pushing tax reform will appear, and at least push the debate for whomever the Republican candidate ends up being.

Actually, I'm starting to agree with something Ace was saying a few weeks ago. Its almost got to be Paul Ryan, even if the man doesn't want it. You don't always get to pick your place in history, sometimes history picks you. Every republican, whether they like it or not, is going to be running on the Ryan plan. The press won't have it any other way. And he's the only one that really understands it enough to adequately defend it to voters. Its almost got to be him by default.

I am glad the Huckester decided not to run. I don't want a retread, be it him, or Romney or anyone else who lost last time but thinks they can do better this time around. As as of today, for me the field is still wide open.

I will say this: I listen to a Houston talk show host, Michael Berry (if you have never listened to him, you should at least once) and he was going to interview Pawlenty. Berry set up the rules as such: he took questions from his audience, he wanted clear, short answers and told Pawlenty that if he tried to filibuster, Berry would cut him off at the pass. So the interview was rapid fire questions with short quick answers. I was impressed with T-Paw as he seemed to be able to address everything that concerned me as a die hard conservative. One of the questions was "What did you do wrong as governor" and T-Paws answer was precise, no spin involved.

The only question he got a D on was the last one which was "What would you do about the 12 to 20 million illegals in this country that are costing Americans so much?" T-Paw tried to dodge the question and for me, as a Texan, that is a very, VERY important question. I don't want to hear about paths to citizenship or the Dream Act or any of those other politically correct answers. I want to know that the person I vote for will a) go after those who hire illegals b) seal our borders to the invasion that is currently going on c) deport those who do not belong here and d) enforce the damn laws. I have already attended funerals of people who have been murdered by illegals. It is time that stops.

The MSM and RINOS will spin (for a while) that Palin either isn't running or won't get Huck's support. I find this laughable at best, but even the boneheads at MSNBC will see the writing on the wall.

Palin is in the catbird seat. Iowa is up for grabs and so is the South.

HERMAN CAIN

With Mike Huckabee no longer in the race, Mitt Romney has a much clearer path to victory in Iowa, which gives him a much clearer path to victory overall. Imagine Romney winning Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, all before Florida votes. If he loses South Carolina, then he can still go on to win the nomination, making him the first GOP candidate in modern history to win the nomination without SC. On the other hand, if he does win SC, then he'll likely make history as the first candidate of either party to win the entire field of primaries and caucuses. He was set to do that in '08, until Huckabee came out of nowhere to win Iowa.

As for the general election, I'd like to see Romney pick Governor Nikki Haley of SC as his running mate. The Left would go berserk, claiming she's just another Sarah Palin, but she'd bring the South together in a way that even Palin probably couldn't. Not to mention, after four (or eight) years as Romney's VP, she'd be all but unbeatable as the party's nominee in 2016 or 2020.

So was this an anti-endorsement of Mitch Daniels?

Palin/Cain. ...or, if he would accept it... Palin/West.

History to be made, once again. First woman president, first Black vice president.

Solid Conservatives. Solid grassroots support.

Palin/West is my first choice. But Palin/Cain is an excellent second on my list.

Now the big, Big, BIG question: will she or won't she?

"You know, she may run away with it. And that’s one of those things everyone needs to be prepared for.”

Mike Huckabee

Thank God Huckabee is out. He had no chance and we need to clear the decks of establishment Republican progressives.

Romney is self-destructing so fast that I doubt anybody he is going to last which is why the Rove money people were looking at Pawlenty but after his performance at the first debate against what the establishment considers "second tier" candidates, that money is now looking at Daniels.

In my opinion, any of the above are doubtful against Obama because they are all open-borders/amnesty supporters and have no personality.

BTW, before you get all charged up about Mitch Daniels, maybe you ought to read this:

http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2011/05/pamela-geller-unleashes-on-mitch.html

Talk about reaching out to the Islamists.

I am glad The Huckster is not running. This man reminds me of a smooth, modern day Elmer Gantry. Now I guess he can play King Maker with his Fox News show.

I wasn't for Huck because, it seemed, a lot of the liberals liked him. I like Cain and I like Palin. I think a lot of people are underestimating Palin. I don't think she's out of the picture at all.

Professor

I agree with all your analysis but especially the following statement .... I have repeated it, because I believe it needs to sink in, sink in, sink in, for everybody .... and I have also modified it slightly ....

"There is only one potential motivational candidate left."

"There is only one potential motivational candidate left."

"There is only one potential motivational candidate left."

"There is only one potential motivational candidate left."

In fact, IMV - there is only one candidate who is motivational to the extent that America absolutely NEEDS.

Gov Palin will run for POTUS, and many of us believe it will be AFTER 2 years have elapsed since her resignation. At this point, no further bogus ethics charges will be able to be filed against her (the AK law regarding this was changed, I think at the end of 2009).

Do you know whether our thinking about this '2 year' period is correct Professor?

I'm hoping it helps Paul Ryan decide to get in the race.