Positively Entertainment?

Earlier this election season, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain sat down in a one on one debate that displayed Newt’s intellectualism and fast thinking, and Cain’s graciousness.  It’s starting to look like Newt will have a shot at another one on one debate as only he and Rick Santorum have agreed to The Donald’s debate on Ion Television, sponsored by Newsmax. 

Mitt Romney politely declined, Paul said no and Huntsman inferred that the whole thing was about Trump’s ratings.  George Will has also infamously declared that the Trump debate is below Presidential politics.  Perry and Bachmann have not confirmed, although Bachmann said she believes Trump will be biased because he is already leaning towards a candidate.  How that makes this debate different from any MSNBC or CNN debate where the moderators are already in the bag for Obama, I’m not sure.

Who is going to be hurt from backing out of the Trump debate? Trump has already declared his position on many things.  Huntsman and Paul would both find themselves on opposite sides from Trump.  Romney probably won’t be hurt by snubbing Trump.

Will Santorum or Gingrich be hurt by accepting the debate?  For Newt, probably not.  For Santorum, the possibility for damage to his campaign is pretty big.  While he will be getting a great deal of facetime, Santorum will be answering questions from a very strong willed and strongly opinionated Trump while going up against Newt one on one.  It is a very risky move.  The risk will be compounded if Trump then endorses Newt.

Bachmann and Perry’s non-committal stance currently is only making them more irrelevant. It also comes across as indecisive.

Or is it helping to make Trump more irrelevant?  Trump has said that if the candidate he wants doesn’t get in the race, he will run as a third party candidate.  Is it better to cater to the crybaby?  Or ignore him?  And honestly, would Trump get any votes as a third party candidate, when four more years of Obama is on the line?

Trunkline 2012: Sunday Election News Review-12//4/11

Bookmark and Share ****Cain gone, Newt Ahead in Iowa, Coming in second: Ron Paul?? *****

With Cain gone, the field is looking more and more like Gingrich/Romney.  Meanwhile, liberal pundits and even some conservatives seem to be praying that Newt’s rise will be as long lived as Bachmann’s, Perry’s and Cain’s.  Is it really Santorum’s turn?  How about Ron Paul’s?

Bookmark and Share

Trunkline 2012: Friday’s Campaign Trail News Wrap-Up from White House 2012 – 12/2/11

Bookmark and Share  On this day, Trunkline 2012 delivers to you a dose of suspense involving Herman Cain’s campaign and his personal life, Palin’s wink and nod to Rick Santorum, the case for Newt, questions about Ron Paul and antisemitism, a poll question, the final calendar dates for the Republican presidential primaries and caucuses, and much more.

 

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson Kicks His Still Unofficial Presidential Campaign Into High Gear

Bookmark and Share While few outside of New Mexico recognize the name Gary Johnson as a possible presidential contender, the former Governor has been crisscrossing the country as much if not more than likely candidate Mitt Romney. In these opening days of 2011, Johnson is spending the first week of the year in New Hampshire.

Word is that he is getting ever closer to an announcement that will make his campaign official. Given his low name I.D., an early start would behoove far more than better known names such as Haley Barbour, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty and Romney. Aside from an early start giving him some much needed time to catch up to other potential candidates, being one of the first, if not the first to make his campaign official, will offer him some invaluable earned media attention.

In the meantime, to get you better acquainted with this libertarian Republican and his strong agenda, the following video interview will offer you an exceptional look at this relatively obscure but intriguing potential candidate and his refreshingly decisive platform. In it, Johnson explains his views regarding everything from abortion to the deficit, illegal immigration, the border and the legalization of marijuana.

The interview will prove to make Ron Paul fans proud and force conservatives to rethink their approach to many issues.

Bookmark and Share

Who Wants Palin To Run?

The TEA party loves Sarah Palin.  She can still draw a crowd, and undoubtedly has been instrumental in driving voters to the polls in Republican primaries.  As a result, conservative TEA party Republicans fill races across this country.  Her success continues to fuel talk of a Presidential run among…the leftwing media?

The most recent news outlet to run major speculation on Palin’s Presidential bid is US News and World Report, who took her recent meeting with Republican leaders at the conservative Newsmax.com as a sure sign that she will run.  Along with the story, they ran two slideshows.  One was 10 reasons Palin would be a good President, the other was 10 reasons she would be a bad President.  They are already framing the talking points for us.

Newsmax.com on the other hand ran a story about the meeting headlined: Palin Warns of ‘Armageddon’, ‘Third World War’ In Exclusive Newsmax Broadcast. While many conservatives might agree with her premise, when Palin says the word Armageddon most know she is not speaking figuratively.  It is not exactly the sort of headline a Presidential candidate might have hoped for, especially when the Armageddon reference was only a portion of what she spoke about and was in reference to Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

Palin did speak at length about a Presidential bid and what her Presidency would look like.  So why is US News the excited media outlet here?  It may be that Democrats are counting on a Palin Presidential run, and most conservatives don’t really want it.  Democrats and establishment Republicans have constantly underestimated TEA party candidates, and Dems have seen them as easy targets.  In a year that Obama and his Congress have nothing positive to run on, Obama made a special trip to Delaware, where Christine O’Donnell trails by double digits just to take a few shots at her.  Yes Mr. President, we all acknowledge that you are big and bad compared to O’Donnell, now get back to work.

On the other hand, when Sarah Palin, a devout Protestant Christian, was contending for the Family Research Council’s straw poll at their Values Voter Summit, she did not do well.  FRC is a Protestant, conservative, family values organization.  She should have come in second or third easily.  Instead, she came in fifth behind a Mormon and a divorced and remarried Catholic.

Palin will most likely run, and she will draw crowds with tens of thousands of people.  Out of those crowds, thousands will likely vote for her in the primary.  At this point, I do not see her taking the nomination.

Haley Barbour Named ‘Most Powerful Republican’

Bookmark and Share    The following newsblast was issued by Newsmax.com.  White House 2012 is in not in the habit of posting the works of other internet editorial organizations but I have chosen to pass on this gem from Newsmax because the opinions provided in it regarding Haley Barbour, confirm the validity of the opinions offered here in regards to  Haley Barbour and 2012. 

Interestingly, while we are more than 26 months out from the 2012 presidential election, although the mainstream media seems to be unaware of Haley Barbour’s rise to prominence, much of the blogosphere like Politico.com and Newsmax.com and most political inner circles  are.

The following from Newsmax, helps make it clear why and how Barbour is on the rise;

“Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour has more political clout than any Republican in the country — at least until the November elections.

That’s because he runs the Republican Governors Association and several state-based PACs, and has more money to spend on the 2010 elections — $40 million — than any other GOP leader.

Barbour’s behind-the-scenes fundraising efforts recently landed a $1 million contribution from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., and more than twice that amount from Bob Perry, the Texas businessman who funded the Swift Boat attacks in 2004.

Barbour’s RGA matched the Republican National Committee in fundraising in the last quarter, thanks in part to dissatisfaction with RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Politico disclosed in an article headlined “The most powerful Republican in politics.”

Republican strategist Ed Rollins recently called Steele “a disaster” and said he has “failed miserably” at fundraising.

Meanwhile, Barbour is “clearly the top political strategist and political operative of his generation,” said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a former RNC chief of staff.

“He is without peer when he is raising money.”

The RGA and state-based PACs can accept unlimited donations from corporations and individuals, while the RNC and other federal committees cannot, adding to Barbour’s clout.

And winning governorships is particularly important this year, because governors will play a major role in the redistricting that will occur in 2011 and 2012 following this year’s census. So helping to elect GOP governors “will have an impact way beyond the 2010 election,” Politico observes.

In addition to helping his fellow Republicans, Barbour could also be laying the groundwork for a presidential run in 2012.

He currently polls way behind potential candidates Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. But his logic “is simple,” an adviser told Politico. “When he surveys what most Republicans consider to be a weak field, he sees no reason he couldn’t easily beat them.”

Posted by Newsmax.com, 8/22/10,   

Bookmark and Share

Libs Divided Over Barbour

Bookmark and Share

Bad Joke or Serious Threat?

Most of the liberal commentators roll their eyes when they hear about Haley Barbour.  Alex Pareene at Salon wrote yesterday, “I can’t believe people are seriously talking up a corrupt, corpulent tobacco lobbyist’s chances at winning the presidency.”  A similar theme echoed from The Guardian‘s Michael Tomasky, “But Barbour is as southern-fried as they come. And deeply reactionary, and an old tobacco lobbyist, and porcine, and governor of a state that’s 49th or 50th in everything and perfectly happy about that, and just the kind of guy you can picture being most at home hanging around in a corporate hospitality tent at Augusta National during Masters week.”  Even Politico‘s piece which Tomasky called a “puff piece” was critical of Barbour in the same vein.  It’s authors wrote, “A portly Southern conservative who represented tobacco firms and made millions building a lobbying firm isn’t the ideal profile for a Republican nominee in this or any political environment.”

The Politico piece did however cover some of the good points of Haley Barbour.  It was probably because it wasn’t all negative that it was derided as a puff piece.  The strengths Barbour possesses were the focus of Susan Estrich’s piece at newsmax.com.  Unlike the grade-schoolers at Salon and The Guardian, Estrich skipped the name calling and focused on Barbour’s long history in politics and his record in Mississippi.  The result was a piece that looked at Barbour as a potential candidate rather than a caricature.  Estrich summed up writing that, “If I had to pick a Republican I wouldn’t want to run against, it would be him.”

So which version of Haley Barbour is the real one?  The answer to that question can be found by looking at the writers of these articles.  Alex Pareene is gossip writer who knows about as much about politics as she hears on “The Daily Show”.  Tomasky doesn’t have any real political knowledge or experience either, but he probably gets his views from MSNBC.  Politico‘s writers are a little more experienced with Jim VandeHei having experience in the White House press corps and married to a former political staffer, Ken Vogel staffed House Committees, but Andy Barr pretty much just hangs out on liberal TV shows.  Susan Estrich clerked for the Supreme Court and was the campaign manager for the 1988 Michael Dukakis Presidential campaign.  Hmmm, which of these actually knows anything about Presidential campaigns and insider politics?

Right now, liberals are trying to salvage their self-esteem.  They got everything they wanted and things are worse than they were before.  The people are angry.  The Democrats’ approval ratings stink.  About the only thing liberal writers can do is call people names and hope that they can make the Republicans look even worse than the Democrats already do.  Some writers, like Estrich and part of the Politico team are looking beyond the current disaster the Democrats face.  They’re considering the 2012 election from the perspective of all the problems the Democrats will still face when that time comes.

No one can know who will win the nominations in 2012 or the general election.  Will the economy be better, worse or the same?  What will our foreign affairs situation look like?  What other issues could become important to the voters?  It is far too early to know the answers to those key questions that will greatly impact the outcome of the election.  A writer with some common sense, let alone experience, will recognize that fact and focus on potential candidates’ ability to adapt to changing political landscapes, weather criticism and maintain a solid network.  While those things don’t guarantee victory, they certainly have a lot more to do with it than whether or not Chris Matthews gets a tingle up his leg.

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: