Who Will The Republicans Look to in 2012

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Palin will have less chance than Edwards did this year. Romney will have a tough time remaining relevant for 4 years. Jindal's skin color problem hasn't disappeared, it simply became less than what the Democrats in Louisiana had.

Someone elected in 2004 or 2006 would be perfect for someone fresh enough, but neither Mitch Daniels or Butch Otter ain't a stellar candidate

Jindal's chances hinge on what NO and the rest of LA looks like in 2011.  If there is a thriving renaissance Jindal is an excellent choice.  His skin color can only be a positive, even if it is a cynical move by the GOP to show they are "color blind."

Mitch Daniels is a superb governor and his economic credentials are beyond reproach.  He keeps a balanced budget, lowered property taxes (while raising the sales tax 1%), kept vital social services alive and well, AND provided health coverage for the uninsured!  Deficit-hawk conservatives will rally around him, and he can make a serious outreach to liberals as well.  Read his Wikipedia page for more info.

We'll see how he does against Jill Long Thompson.  If he can mount a substantial win against a very good challenger in an otherwise catastrophic year for the GOP, I think he should consider getting an exploratory committee together.  And maybe start chatting up foreign dignitaries.

"I got Indiana back on track, and I can do the same for America!"

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

From wikipedia re: Daniels' service as Bush's OMB Director (citations in original):

"In 2002, Daniels helped discredit a report by Assistant to the President on Economic Policy Lawrence B. Lindsey estimating the cost of the Iraq War at between $100-$200 billion. Daniels called this estimate "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion.[6] As of 2007, the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has exceeded $400 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office in August 2007 estimated that appropriations would eventually reach $1 trillion or more.[7]" 

I think this is why you didn't hear Daniels' name in McCain VP speculation. 

No one expected the Iraq operation to require large-scale troop commitment into Nov. 2008 and beyond, except perhaps a few visionaries.    A short war to depose the Ba'ath regime (which was correct) and a 1-2 year drawdown while order and new government were established, was the expectation.  And $50-$60 billion, while a bit low, is consistent with that.

Understandable that McCain wouldn't want to touch that, but I don't think you can fault him for it.  Candidate Daniels can brush that off very easily: "We all thought it would be a short operation, including all of the Democrats in Congress who voted for the war."  End of discussion.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Whomever is nominated has a chance of being the next Ronald Reagan.

or the next Bob Dole

the next Goldwater might be the right analogy.  especially if Obama gets shot in 2011, and Biden pushes through some of his legislation and the GOP nominates Pence.

Goldwater happened because the Right Wing got fed up with being ignored by the party establishment of Eisenhower, Nixon, and Rockefeller.  He was the champion of everyone on the Right, from Buckley to Schlafly, and they gave not a toot whether he could actually win the election.  They also knew it didn't really matter anyway, since Abraham Lincoln wouldn't have defeated LBJ that year.

Today, the Right is firmly in control of the GOP.  They can nominate a candidate for his electability and then pressure him to tow the conservative line.  Look what they did to John McCain, after all.

No Goldwater debacle in 2012.