Pawlenty 2012

[ilikeverin]

Pawlenty seems to be coming off awful strong as the Republican scolder-in-chief at the governors' festival.  He going to run?  Could he take the mantle of "moderate Republican candidate"?

[Keystone Phil]

He's not a moderate though.

Pawlenty will be my guy if my number one choice doesn't run. I think it's safe to say that my list looks like this...

1) Ideal choice
2) Pawlenty
3) Jindal

[paul718]

Pawlenty seems to be coming off awful strong as the Republican scolder-in-chief at the governors' festival.  He going to run?  Could he take the mantle of "moderate Republican candidate"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP6wH761QLc
Not that it disqualifies him, but if he's ever on a national ticket, be prepared to see a lot of this.  Fast forward to about 2:20.

Phil, if I correctly guessed who your #1 choice is, would you say it?

[BeccaM]

He's an intelligent guy, but probably too dry to win the nomination in a pool of very dynamic governors who will be clawing their way to the top.

[Sam Spade]

Let me help...

1) Ideal choice Rick "loverboy" Santorum
2) Pawlenty
3) Jindal

[Bacon King]

Let me help...

1) Ideal choice Rick "loverboy" Santorum
2) Pawlenty
3) Jindal

Haha, I was about to post something to that effect but I see you beat me to it.

[Lunar]

Pawlenty would be good, he's very affable and inoffensive.  Maybe a bit boring, but despite what BRTD probably thinks, Pawlenty represents the appealing part of the GOP.  He might not be hte future of the GOP, but he's a good transition.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, if I correctly guessed who your #1 choice is, would you say it?

I think some other people here took care of that for you. 

[ChrisFromNJ]

Good grief. Now Pawlenty is being called a moderate?

[Workers' Friend]

Good grief. Now Pawlenty is being called a moderate?

The sh**tty thing is, whenever us Republicans nominate a Moderate, we always lose.

[Senator Ben]

If Obama had a bad term, I could see myself supporting him.

[ilikeverin]

He's not a moderate though.

If Mitt Romney can attempt to paint himself as a no-nonsense culture warrior with a laissez-faire, business-friendly inclination...

[Keystone Phil]

He's not a moderate though.

If Mitt Romney can attempt to paint himself as a no-nonsense culture warrior with a laissez-faire, business-friendly inclination...

Yeah, portraying yourself as a moderate is one thing. I was just clearing up that he isn't a moderate.

[ChrisFromNJ]

Good grief. Now Pawlenty is being called a moderate?

The sh**tty thing is, whenever us Republicans nominate a Moderate, we always lose.

The last time you fellows nominated a moderate was in 1976.

[Workers' Friend]

Good grief. Now Pawlenty is being called a moderate?

The sh**tty thing is, whenever us Republicans nominate a Moderate, we always lose.

The last time you fellows nominated a moderate was in 1976.

Don't forget 1992, 1996, and 2008.

[ChrisFromNJ]

Good grief. Now Pawlenty is being called a moderate?

The sh**tty thing is, whenever us Republicans nominate a Moderate, we always lose.

The last time you fellows nominated a moderate was in 1976.

Don't forget 1992, 1996, and 2008.

Neither of the Bushes were moderates and Bob Dole certainly was not a moderate.

[Senator Ben]

Good grief. Now Pawlenty is being called a moderate?

The sh**tty thing is, whenever us Republicans nominate a Moderate, we always lose.

The last time you fellows nominated a moderate was in 1976.

Don't forget 1992, 1996, and 2008.

Neither of the Bushes were moderates and Bob Dole certainly was not a moderate.

I think Bush 41 was.

[Workers' Friend]

Good grief. Now Pawlenty is being called a moderate?

The sh**tty thing is, whenever us Republicans nominate a Moderate, we always lose.

The last time you fellows nominated a moderate was in 1976.

Don't forget 1992, 1996, and 2008.

Neither of the Bushes were moderates and Bob Dole certainly was not a moderate.

I think Bush 41 was.

He ran as a Social Conservative in 1988, but governed as a Moderate. Bob Dole wasn't a strong Social Conservative. Baby Bush ran on a platform APPEALING to the Religious Right, which he really didn't keep.

[Χahar]

Good grief. Now Pawlenty is being called a moderate?

The sh**tty thing is, whenever us Republicans nominate a Moderate, we always lose.

The last time you fellows nominated a moderate was in 1976.

Don't forget 1992, 1996, and 2008.

Neither of the Bushes were moderates and Bob Dole certainly was not a moderate.

I think Bush 41 was.

Not in 1988.

[paul718]

He ran as a Social Conservative in 1988, but governed as a Moderate. Bob Dole wasn't a strong Social Conservative.

I agree with you that Bush 41 was a moderate.  Dole was a moderate but ran as a hard Fiscal Conservative in 1996 so as to draw a distinction between he and a moderate Clinton. 

But what do youmean by this?

Baby Bush ran on a platform APPEALING to the Religious Right, which he really didn't keep.

[Workers' Friend]

Baby Bush said he was Socially Conservative, but I have seem him idle on most Social Issues, except Iraq.

[paul718]

Baby Bush said he was Socially Conservative, but I have seem him idle on most Social Issues, except Iraq.

He did get 2 conservative justices on the Supreme Court.  And I believe his ONLY veto in the first term was on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (I could be wrong).  And how is Iraq a social issue? 

I think he's been a pretty consistent social conservative.  That's about the only thing he has been consistent on.

[Workers' Friend]

Baby Bush said he was Socially Conservative, but I have seem him idle on most Social Issues, except Iraq.

He did get 2 conservative justices on the Supreme Court.  And I believe his ONLY veto in the first term was on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (I could be wrong).  And how is Iraq a social issue? 

I think he's been a pretty consistent social conservative.  That's about the only thing he has been consistent on.

True, but I think he only did those things not to lose election and stay cool with the South. The recent 2008 election shows a Social Moderate with Fiscal Conservatism loses if they are Republican.

[paul718]

True, but I think he only did those things not to lose election and stay cool with the South. The recent 2008 election shows a Social Moderate with Fiscal Conservatism loses if they are Republican.

I think Bush was pretty genuine.  He wears his faith on his sleeve, and has never budged on a social issue.  As for McCain, he's pro-life, against gay marriage, and against creating new embryos for stem-cell research.  The only problem he has with social conservatism is the practice of injecting religion into the argument.  So I think he still qualifies as a social conservative, just not a "religious conservative".  I personally believe that under different circumstances (less Bush backlash, no credit crisis, no GOP corruption), McCain is a winner.  But then again, under different circumstances he might've lost the nomination.   

But I might agree with the idea that a social moderate, fiscal conservative is a losing combination.  I am a believer in the "stool theory" of the Reagan Coalition ("3 legs" = fiscal conservatives + social conservatives + nat'l security conservatives).  Without those 3 legs, the stool won't stand up. 

[Workers' Friend]

True, but I think he only did those things not to lose election and stay cool with the South. The recent 2008 election shows a Social Moderate with Fiscal Conservatism loses if they are Republican.

I think Bush was pretty genuine.  He wears his faith on his sleeve, and has never budged on a social issue.  As for McCain, he's pro-life, against gay marriage, and against creating new embryos for stem-cell research.  The only problem he has with social conservatism is the practice of injecting religion into the argument.  So I think he still qualifies as a social conservative, just not a "religious conservative".  I personally believe that under different circumstances (less Bush backlash, no credit crisis, no GOP corruption), McCain is a winner.  But then again, under different circumstances he might've lost the nomination.   

But I might agree with the idea that a social moderate, fiscal conservative is a losing combination.  I am a believer in the "stool theory" of the Reagan Coalition ("3 legs" = fiscal conservatives + social conservatives + nat'l security conservatives).  Without those 3 legs, the stool won't stand up. 

I think the National Security Conservative and Social Conservative legs could stand without the Fiscal Conservative one, if the stool wants to not fall before the democrats.