As the architect of America's overwhelming victory in the Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush spent most of 1991 as a prohibitive favorite for reelection. But after the economy entered a short, sharp recession, Bush looked increasingly vulnerable, not least due to restlessness among Republicans. He caught a big break in December of 1991 when his most formidable potential challenger bowed out of the presidential race. Just weeks before the New Hampshire primary, New York's then-governor Mario Cuomo announced that he would not pursue the Democratic presidential nomination, thus leaving the field to a series of obscure has-beens and also-rans, including an Arkansas governor who would later go on to win the White House.
Given the staggering sums it now takes to run a serious campaign for a major party's presidential nomination, it's hard to imagine any candidate waiting until late December of 2011 to decide whether or not for president in 2012. Barack Obama announced his candidacy 21 months before election day, and he began gearing up his campaign organization months before. Other contenders, like Hillary Clinton, started even earlier.
With the essential caveat that it is still very, very early, and the added wrinkle that fundraising in the Internet era could give late entrants a better shot at running for the presidency, it's worth noting how gun-shy various Republican heavies have been about their plans for 2012. After stinging defeats in 2006 and 2008, Republicans face a serious enthusiasm gap, and the Democratic advantage in party identification is, according to Gallup, the largest it has been since 1983. That number actually underestimates the extent of the Democratic advantage, as there are far fewer Reagan-voting conservative Democrats in the ranks.
The possible GOP field begins with the vice presidential also-rans, the
men who John McCain passed over in favor of Alaska Governor Sarah
Palin. Mitt Romney has emerged as a favorite of diehard conservatives,
including the young activists at CPAC who late last month made him the
winner of their presidential straw poll for the third year in a row.
Romney has also invested considerable resources in his Free and Strong
America PAC, and he's made it clear that he intends to campaign
aggressively for Republican candidates in the 2010 midterm
congressional elections. Yet there are indications that Romney intends
to sit out the 2012 presidential race. Right now, Romney is working on
a wide-ranging book - not a conventional campaign memoir - that traces
the rise and fall of various empires throughout history, with the
intention of divining lessons for America's future. Romney could be
positioning himself as a kind of Churchill figure, a wise elder
statesman who will wait for the Obama era to end before he makes
another bid for the presidency.
Bobby Jindal, often described as the Republican Obama, faces a rather
more prosaic barrier to running for president. Having served less than
half of his first term, Jindal is committed to running for reelection
as governor of Louisiana in 2011. To win that race and then pivot to
campaigning for president in Iowa just weeks later would be unseemly to
say the least. Though Jindal hasn't ruled himself out of the 2012 race
in Shermanesque fashion, he's come close.
Jindal does, however, have some strengths that could lead Republicans
to come to him. Though widely seen as a flop, his recent response to
President Obama's economic address to Congress has endeared him to
conservative activists, most notably Rush Limbaugh, who condemned
Jindal's Republican critics on-air. Moreover, Jindal has shrewder
political instincts than you might expect from an aw-shucks Rhodes
Scholar, as demonstrated when he asked not to be vetted for a McCain
vice presidential slot - a no-win proposition that would have made him
look disloyal to his home state. Assuming Jindal has a successful first
term, he could run at the last minute as the conservative candidate and
as the competence candidate. But this "strategy," if you can call it
that, demands that Jindal lay low.
Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, seems genuinely torn over
whether to focus on running for reelection in 2010 or to run for
president in 2012. He has already built a small, informal network of
advisors who could aid him in a national race, and he has critiqued
President Obama's stimulus package with an eye towards impressing the
GOP's national activist base. With his unpretentious style and
blue-collar background, Pawlenty was seen as a formidable 2008 vice
presidential prospect - indeed, in the days before Sarah Palin's
candidacy was announced, Pawlenty was considered the odds-on favorite.
It didn't hurt that Republican strategists were increasingly focused on
the Upper Midwest, where pro-life Democrats seemed to tilt in a
Republican direction this past November. Yet there remains a nagging
sense among leading Minnesota Republicans that Pawlenty is not ready
for prime-time, and that he'd be better served by burnishing his
credentials with another gubernatorial term in St. Paul before running
for president in 2016.
Sarah Palin has emerged as a polarizing figure in Republican circles.
As a rule, conservatives remain enthusiastic about a Palin presidential
run, while moderates are opposed. But so far, there is little
indication that Palin is preparing the groundwork for a national
campaign, with the exception of making campaign appearances in key
races, including Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss's reelection run-off.
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who ran an
unconventional and surprisingly successful campaign in 2008, has, like
Mitt Romney, formed a PAC to aid Republican congressional candidates.
As the host of a variety show on Fox News, Huckabee has offered
consistent, biting critiques of the Wall Street bailout, the auto
industry bailout, and other measures he derides, in his trademark
populist language, as little more than socialism for the rich. Of all
the potential Republican candidates in 2012, Huckabee is by far the
most interesting.
Then, of course, there is a wide array of conservative Southerners for
Republicans to choose from. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison might be
positioning herself for a presidential run by challenging current Texas
Governor Rick Perry. The danger is that her moderately pro-choice
position - she favors a number of abortion restrictions, including
parental notification laws, but she is also in favor of Roe v. Wade -
will undermine her candidacy. Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi,
the former chair of the Republican National Committee, is deeply
familiar with the inner workings of the party and the fundraising
demands of a presidential run. He has also positioned himself on the
right of the party by adamantly opposing President Obama's stimulus
package, and he gained a reputation for competence with his relatively
successful handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Yet Barbour
has also said that Republicans have an obligation to "squelch" their
presidential ambitions until after 2010, and that gag order presumably
applies to him as well.
Clearly Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina, hasn't gotten the
message. As a foot-solder in Newt Gingrich's Republican revolution,
Sanford made his reputation as a committed porkbuster and skinflint,
going so far as to sleep in his congressional office. During his
contentious first term as governor, Sanford waged war against
Republicans in the legislature over what he saw as their excessive
spending. He also unsuccessfully backed a voucher-like program that
garnered considerable enthusiasm among libertarian activists, many of
whom consider Sanford one of their own. Interestingly enough, Sanford
is the only mainstream Republican to have attracted the attention of
Ron Paul's loyal grassroots army. And by forcefully opposing the
stimulus package, on television and op-ed pages, Sanford has raised his
national profile considerably. Like Bill Clinton, another wonky
Southern governor, Sanford might wind up as a come-from-behind nominee.







Fantastic breakdown of the potential GOP field and shrewd parallel between '92 and '12.
A couple of things, Tim Pawlenty doesn't have an unpretentious style, he's just totally boring. His job performance rating and popularity here in MN is not the greatest. If he decides to run in the primaries in 2012 he will draw little money, small crowds, and little enthusiasm.
As for Sanford, he has talked a good game, but the only part of the so-called stimulus package he has rejected is the amount for extending unemployment benefits, which is just a small fraction of the total. It now looks like he'll take the bulk of the funds. As for 2012, Sanford faces the same problems as Pawlenty, the inability to raise large amounts of money, crowds, and enthusiasm.
As for Palin, apparently you haven't been paying much attention. She was the first of the republican governors to come out against the stimulus, going so far as to state that 0bama should veto the bill and start over, citing that if the states accept it, it will leave them with unfunded mandates once federal funds dry up, a theme then adopted by some of the other republican governors. Once the bill passed she has announced that she will accept only the part of it destined for infrastructre projects, less than half the total amount. In late January 2009, she established her own PAC called SarahPAC to raise funds to help GOP candidates in 2010. Gov. Rick Perry of TX recently asked for, and received Palin's endorsement for a 3rd term. According to the latest polls, she has an 85 percent approval rating among republicans, I'm guessing that the remaining 15 percent, a tiny minority, must be the moderates you speak of who oppose her. That same poll found that over 55 percent of republicans thought that the party should be more like Palin. April will be the first time that SarahPAC files with the FEC, so it will be of great interest to see how much she raised in just over 2 months of the first quarter.
We already know that she can draw huge crowds, with huge crowds comes donations and volunteers. All three factors, cash, crowds, and volunteers, will be needed for any future run, either in 2012 or 2016.
The person to watch is Palin.
I agree Palin would be the person to watch and she has remained quiet and just sits up there doing her job. Whose to say she does not start her run in 2010. I am all for it. And will continue to make donations to sarahpac.
As a moderate republican with a streak of libertarianism; I cannot imagine suffering through a Palin campaign for President. She has no business or international experience and where are her ideas?
If you look to who are the best and most viable choices, you are left with two: Mitt Romney and Mark Sanford. Mitt has the business chops and Mark Sanford has the lets buckle down and get serious about spending conservative mantra. I also, like Jindal but I think he comes along after 2012.
As Republicans we need to stop playing to the ultra-evangelicals it is beyond frustrating; you will not find new ideas from people trying to pull us into the past. Also, yes Reagan was a great President but "was" is the key word - we need to move forward as a party not backward.
You, like the rest of the elitists in the conservative media would love to downplay Sarah Palin, but wishing doesn't make it so. Just the fact that you wasted more words on a non-starter like Pawlenty tells me everything I need to know about you. We have one superstar politician in our party and you're determined to sabotage her so you can run another squish. You better take a look at the HOT AIR poll to find out what the REAL conservatives are thinking about 2012.
Matt75,
She has no business experience? She and her husband ran their own business for years, what are you talking about? Like most governors, she does not have a wide range of foreign policy expereience, but she recently negotiated a $500 million deal with the Canadians. She hosted 9 foreign dignataries at the 50th Anniversary of Alaskan statehood, holding lengthy discussions with each one, including the Russian ambassador. So, she has at least as much foreign policy cred as Jindal, Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty or any of the others.
If you bother to examine what she has been doing in Alaska just this year alone, you'd find that she has responded to falling oil prices by cutting the budget, imposing a hiring freeze, was smart enough to forward fund education last year so no reducation was taken this year. Thanks go her not giving into Democratic demands that she go on a spending spree when oil prices were high, Alaska has $7 billion in the bank. She has put forward plans to build an in-state pipeline, and has supported the continuation of the suspension of fuel tax in Alaska. Gov. Palin has rejected over half the stimulus money for her state, accepting only the funds for infrastructure projects which will create jobs, and rejecting those that would have left the state with unfunded mandates when federal funds dry up.
You say that "Republican heavies" are "gun-shy about their plans for 2012". You say they are reluctant to go up against Obama. I'd say these people are very wise. After all, this seems to be a contest about who will go down in history as the "Alf Landon of 2012."
Please visit my Blog:
"Conservatives Are America's Real Terrorists"
http://conservativesarecommunistss.blogspot.com/
Matt75
You stated: "Also, yes Reagan was a great President but "was" is the key word - we need to move forward as a party not backward."
LOL The current tenant of the WH has at various times claimed to be just like JFK, FDR, MKL and Lincoln. He, of course, is nothing like any of these men, but the koolaid drinkers guzzled down his rhetoric like soda on a hot day.
We learn from the past, live today, and plan the future.
Should Palin decide to clean house at Pennsylvania Avenue, she will do one heck of a job.
I often wonder, what would SHE do about the budget, about the military, about repairing the rift caused by the current tenant with the UK.
I suspect she would handle everything nicely, to the benefit of all Americans. Here in the last frontier, we don't look for handouts, we don't rely on government to give us everything. Our motto is JFK's motto... "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
The Honorable Paul Broun
2104 Rayburn House Office building
Washington, D.C. 20515
March 10, 2009
RE: Mikhail Kryzhanovsky, Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton 2012 and CIA.
Dear Representative Broun:
My name is Mikhail Kryzhanovsky, I'm a former KGB USSR and SBU ( Ukrainian Security Service) intelligence officer. In 1991, as SBU spy, I've established an illegal station in Moscow
and had to get into Russian President Yeltsyn's "inner circle" to influence his decisions, which
were extremely anti-Ukrainian at the time. Operation was in progress until Kremlin got some -
how information about it. In 1992 Russia and Ukraine signed a treaty to stop mutual espionage.
I had to resign and move abroad for security reasons.
In 1995 I came to USA, where I planned to do a research in political science and , possibly,
work for the government as intelligence analyst. I met two CIA agents ( and later - FBI National
Security Division agent) in New York City , and signed a certain obligation.
Next was a standard conspiracy (remember, John Deutch was a DCI then - he was appointed
by Bill Clinton and there was a strong suspicion that he was a "mole". He wasn't arrested and
Clinton pardoned him in 2001). CIA decided to copy my Moscow experience - I had to spy on
the U.S. Congress and start with Congress Librarian James Billington who knew about me
through his Moscow representative Mr. Levner and could introduce me to Representatives
and Senators. They also wanted to influence Bill Clinton through my "The Professional" system (instructions on economy, domestic and foreign policy, America's global
domination , KGB special technologies - propaganda,
murders and tortures , and presidential elections
winning methods and strategies).
I was paid $900 to start the job. I was promised anything I want, including the best medical
service in America.
I was in Washigton, D.C. couple of times, met Billington's assistant and sent to Langley "The
Professional" system just in time for Clinton's re-election campaign. Then I made a decision
to stop cooperation with CIA, though they pressed me hard preventing my family from coming
to USA and in other ways. I think, DCI Michael Hayden can tell you more.
In June 2001 I've informed Senator Hillary Clinton about CIA anti-American activity, national
security system collapse and my personal situation (9/11 proved I was right). She helped my
family only. Now national security is #1 priority for her
as a Secretary of State , so she can investigate my case. It might
help her to be elected in 2012.
In 2007, ALGORA, New York, released my White House Special Handbook, or How to Rule
the World in the 21st Century, based on "The Professional". Now students of 245 American universities and colleges (see
Worldcat.org) go through KGB indoctrination and learn top political , espionage and war ma -
nagement in a right way. And not only them.
I watched Barack Obama using my technologies to beat John McCain, win 2008 election and
then build socialism. You were right saying that he "will establish Gestapo-like security force to
impose a Marxist dictatorship". Obama and his neo-Clinton administration will follow my
instructions and KGB technologies , because they match their ideology. This is the socialism I brought to America:
- banks nationalization
- big industry nationalization
- health care nationalization
- total control of the nation.
I do hope you don't blame me for the depression
America is going through now.
If you have any questions, contact me at _________________________
I'm ready to talk at Congress hearing.
Thank you.
Sincerely, Mikhail Kryzhanovsky
The U.S. National Security Institute
http://kryzhanovsky.co.cc