I want to personally thank the millions of Americans who have joined the various Trump grassroots movements and written me letters and e-mails encouraging me to run. My gratitude for your faith and trust in me could never be expressed properly in words. So, I make you this promise: that I will continue to voice my opinions loudly
Was anyone doubting this? Was this really something we needed a promise on?
any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood
Maybe it was one of those Republican "non-factual statements" that are all the rage these days.
I would like to echo this.
To the extent I have previously made any statement on these forums and subsequently have classified that statement (explicitly, implicitly, or mentally) as non-operative, it would be dishonest for you to quote me.
The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.
To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?
Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?
When you build your brand around being an intellectual heavyweight, it helps not to come off like a blithering hack. Good Lord.
And I'm not even talking about Newt's media implosion this week. I just went and sampled some of his writing via Google Books. I think maybe he's missing exactly why the literati hate him.
that sound you hear is Newt's campaign imploding...dead...dead..dead...only question now will he bow out this summer or if he will stay in till after iowa & NH.....so he can create some political pull.
Kraken wrote:This Globe columnist isn't especially astute, nor is the Globe itself known for its incisive attention to Republicans. But for your amusement here is Scott Lehigh's handicapping of the GOP field so far.
If you start with the assumption that a candidate must have a plausible path to both the nomination and the presidency, the prospects of the might-be candidates fall into three categories: Believable, conceivable, and unachievable.
His conclusions:
Unachievable: Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Haley Barbour, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Michele Bachmann
Believable: Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty.
Conceivable: Mike Huckabee and Jon Huntsman.
Read the column to see how he arrived at those conclusions.
Updated that for you. Newt's technically still in the race, right?
At this rate, there won't be a Republican primary election, it'll be candidate by attrition.
If it comes down to Romney vs Huntsman, you'll have two candidates tainted by association with Obama's policies and/or administration. How will that sit with the Tea Party?
Surprising. I thought Barbour bowing out meant he was running for sure.
My partisan side is glad because I think he's one of the few contenders that could compete with Obama. The rest of me is really scared by the remaining candidate pool and the idea that one of them could have their finger on the button someday.
Holman wrote:If it comes down to Romney vs Huntsman, you'll have two candidates tainted by association with Obama's policies and/or administration. How will that sit with the Tea Party?
They'll back anyone they think can win, naturally. The calculation goes something like this:
What's worse: someone whose ideas inspired Obama's idea, or Obama?
Grundbegriff wrote:
A Romney/Huntsman ticket is possible.
I think those two guys are too much alike. Either one needs a fire-breathing rightwing running mate to placate their party's base. But they are the only two who appear electable at this point.
Either way, a moderate R vs. moderate D race would make the middle happy while pissing off both extreme wings equally.
Grundbegriff wrote:A Romney/Huntsman ticket is possible.
Two mormons, though?
How many evangelicals would just stay home if that was the ticket?
That's, along the fact that neither of those guys has much social conservative cred. They would be compromise candidates, tacking towards the middle and the independents.
The last few elections have depended a lot on which side Got Out The Vote. Many Tea Partiers and evangelicals would hold their noses and vote for Romney, but significant numbers wouldn't.
Grundbegriff wrote:A Romney/Huntsman ticket is possible.
I think those two guys are too much alike. Either one needs a fire-breathing rightwing running mate to placate their party's base.
I think that sounds right. Something like Romney/Rice would work, though she disavows interest.
I dont think Romney/Huntsman is possible. Everything I have read they have some strong dislike of each other stemming back to the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics steering committee. Dont think that will happen. Also the dual mormon thing will kill that ticket I think. Also not enough geographical diversity..... Huntsman (Utah 100% republican pretty much) & Romney (Mass. & some Michigan roots- via pops).
Also looks like Mitch Daniels is officially saying no to running in 2012. I am assuming most folks are going to announce by the end of of June...to take advantage of the fundraising quarter closing at the end of it. Also, if they arent establishing themselves in Iowa by then...they arent serious enough.
My money's heavily on Pawlenty at this point as the likely GOP nominee (barring a dramatic turn of events). Especially with Daniels not running, the field really couldn't have turned out better for him. Romney and Huntsman are the only other likely candidates who can compete in the "sanity" category, but Romney is fatally flawed by RomneyCare, and Huntsman is flawed by his service in the Obama administration and by going pretty far in bucking the national GOP (supporting civil unions, strong bashing of Republicans, etc.). Meanwhile Pawlenty seems reasonable enough to be likely acceptable to the moderates and the party elites.
At the same time, Pawlenty doesn't have a lot of baggage (that I'm aware of) on social issues, and can woo the religious base without too much fear of "flip flop" attacks.
I think he's the one candidate that the moderates and radicals in the GOP can agree on, so I think things are very likely to go his way at this point.
Pawlenty does have some baggage. I read an article a bit back about his governing of Minn. was kind of jacked up...if i recall correctly his budgets were not balanced (either he heavily borrowed or something). There were a few other things, which I cant recall. But it really changed my viewpoint on Pawlenty's chances. I really wish I could recall more details of it, but it was an eye opener. I am sure that stuff will come out. Either way, its really a weak field for hte GOP.
Oh, i bet Palin is not running. She has to flirt with it to keep up her lofty perch...but in the end i doubt she will run. if she does she has a chance of ruining the image she's built for herself over the last few years. And she's going to have to forego her money making operations.
R1: My money is on this dead vole to win this pit match.
R2: Are you kidding? That vole lost the last three pit matches he was in.
R1: But he's a true pit-fighter. The dead meerkat you are putting up isn't a pit fighter at all; he just pretends -- er, pretended -- to be one.
R3: Look, guys, we're up against a live bobcat here. He's mangy, and may be rabid, and he seems a little dizzy, and he's easily distracted, but we have to take him seriously. That's why I want to put up Spuds McKenzie.
R1: Spuds McKenzie is dead. He's been dead for like a decade.
R3: YOU VOLE IS DEAD TOO! YOU'RE BEING A HYPOCRITE!
R2: STOP DISRESPECTING THE VOLE! YOU'RE TEARING THE PARTY APART!
R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, etc.: Dr. Stoat will beat them all. He's the only fighter who will truly change the way the pit fight is fought. We'd follow Dr. Stoat anywhere.
Newcastle wrote:Pawlenty does have some baggage. I read an article a bit back about his governing of Minn. was kind of jacked up...if i recall correctly his budgets were not balanced (either he heavily borrowed or something). There were a few other things, which I cant recall. But it really changed my viewpoint on Pawlenty's chances. I really wish I could recall more details of it, but it was an eye opener. I am sure that stuff will come out. Either way, its really a weak field for hte GOP.
Oh, i bet Palin is not running. She has to flirt with it to keep up her lofty perch...but in the end i doubt she will run. if she does she has a chance of ruining the image she's built for herself over the last few years. And she's going to have to forego her money making operations.
She also has to show that she can commit to public service and not quit. I think the moving to Arizona rumors are interesting in this light and I could see her running for Senate (Kyl's seat is up in 2013), or being appointed if McCain steps down in preparation for a 2016 run.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
i dont see McCain running again. He's had his shot for one. Plus he was born in '36, so in the 15/16 time period he'd be 79-80.. and be president when he's 80-81. I see age being a serious issue there. Also presidential runs are very strenuous and i dont see him havin the stamina for it. Then he'd be 80-88 during his presidency (assuming 2 terms). Nah, McCain is done presidential. I think he works on his legacy from here on out, being a senior statesman for the party..etc.
Palin moving to Ariz. I think is probably much more to do with climate, and being a snowbird than anything else. I think her giving up the Governorship will very much hurt her and is indicative of her intentions. She's done with public service, though i think she will flirt with it to stay relevant. I think her future lies in being a media figure and acting as a conservative "cheerleader" (i hate using that term since it seems sexist almost) and rallying point.
Another weakness of hers is her solely using Fox as a media outlet, and not going on other channels. If she runs she has to expose herself to that...and look at the what the Katie Couric interview did to her. However, she could easily have spent the last several years doing some serious studying of political issues, economic issues, and other policy disciplines.
Pyperkub wrote:
She also has to show that she can commit to public service and not quit. I think the moving to Arizona rumors are interesting in this light and I could see her running for Senate (Kyl's seat is up in 2013), or being appointed if McCain steps down in preparation for a 2016 run.
Given that she quit her term and abdicated its responsibilities prematurely, shouldn't she be addressed by the media as "Mayor Palin" rather than "Governor Palin"?
-----------
Regardless of any other candidate's announcements, though, the day belongs to Herman Cain:
CAIN: We don’t need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America, we need to reread the Constitution and enforce the Constitution. … And I know that there are some people that are not going to do that, so for the benefit of those who are not going to read it because they don’t want us to go by the Constitution, there’s a little section in there that talks about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
You know, those ideals that we live by, we believe in, your parents believed in, they instilled in you. When you get to the part about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” don’t stop there, keep reading. Cause that’s when it says “when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.” We’ve got some altering and some abolishing to do!
Holman wrote:Isn't Pawlenty's biggest problem that he has the charisma of Michael Dukakis?
speaking as a former Minnesotan resident, it's more that he was a shitty governor..
As was Mitt Romney, who effectively quit to run for president halfway through his term. He lost his stomach for the job when he realized that being governor is not like being a CEO; the system does not take orders.
Dunno why he thinks the presidency will be any different. Maybe he just wants it on his resume.
