The results of the annual Conservative Political Action Convention straw poll Saturday are in…and they couldn’t be more meaningless.
Romney took 20 percent of the vote, followed by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal with 14 percent, Texas Rep. Ron Paul with 13 percent, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin with 13 percent, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with 10 percent and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee with 7 percent.
First, choosing a leader in 2009 for 2012 is just silly. We first have the mid-term elections which are paramount. However, I think the two are inextricably tied.
When someone’s running for Congress or Senate, their main priority is raising money. And when some big name like a Palin, Huckabee, Romney or Jindal agree to come into town to raise big money that candidate becomes indebted to that fundraiser. And once elected, that congressman or Senator, in turn, can raise money for them.
So you’ll know who’s serious about running for President by seeing who’s bouncing about the country next year raising money. A few years ago I knew Rudy was going to run for President when I was part of a local campaign which had little chance of winning but Rudy’s people accepted my call about doing a fundraiser and one of those annoying robo-calls.
Sarah Palin, who would obviously pack rooms across the country, has nothing but uphill in front of her. First, the press despises her and secondly, it’s going to be difficult for her to fly back and forth to the mainland for fundraisers.
Mitt Romney has tons of money and the ambition. He’s the front runner.
Watch to see what Bobby Jindal does. He says he’s not going to run but it would be nothing but stupid of him to announce he’s open to the idea this early. If he’s running around the country next year you’ll know he’s interested.
As far as Huckabee goes, this guy might as well be printing out Huckabee 2012 shirts in his basement already. He’s quick on his feet, he’s pro-life, and he’s media savvy. I’d expect Romney to get someone to go negative on him in a hurry. Let’s remember that Romney and Huckabee essentially split the conservative vote in the last primary which paved the way for McCain. So there’s not going to be any love lost between those two. That could be very interesting.
So, in short, I believe the outcome of the next congressional elections will have much to say concerning the Presidential election.
March 2, 2009 at 10:52 am
Once again, if the pagan Mitt Romney gets even CLOSE to getting the nomination (as he did this last election) we are doomed for another 4 years. There are just too many conservatives who will not vote for a pagan (myself included). Plus his pro-abortion past is never going to escape him which is why I sincerely wonder if there are darker forces at work here by having him even being taken remotely seriously. I mean…FREAKIN’ CLUELESS!!!!
March 2, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Gee, Deusdonat, don’t hold back; tell us how you REALLY feel!
Ron Paul is weird beyond belief; most of the rest are pleasant and dependable. The one Reagan-esque figure is Sarah Palin. Like Reagan she can make an end-run around the (dare I say it?) establishment and appeal to the people.
— Mack
March 2, 2009 at 1:08 pm
You don’t have to worry about Sarah Palin not being able to show up for fundraisers. She has SarahPAC raising funds right now. My bet is is that it will be taking in plenty of money between now and the 2010 elections, which will be used to help fund campaigns. She will also most likely spend a few weeks holding rallies. She also has a large following here in the lower 48, and she can mobilize a fair number of them to volunteer for get out the vote efforts on behalf of candidates as well. It is true she won’t have as easy a time as Jindal as far as being able to travel, but she’ll do just fine.
As for the media despising her, she can get around that via posting youtube videos, utilizing Sarah Palin Radio, and sending emails directly to the millions in her email database. In other words, just going around the media, and speaking directly to the American people.
March 2, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Deusdonat,
Do you not willingly accept pro-life converts? Or do you disbelieve Romney?
March 2, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Did you listent to Rush Limbaugh’s address to the CPAC? I thought it was great. He really empahsized what a conservative was (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), talked about how it is drastically different than the democratic point of view (rely on govenrment, etc.), and, in general, got people fired up. I recommend it! There’s a link on DrudgeReport.com. =)
March 2, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Matthew – You are so right. Let’s focus on the Congressional elections of 2010 and not get distracted by 2012 and the Presidency. If we could get a Republican congress elected they could hamstring Obama and maybe undo some of the damage that the Dem-Dem juggernaut is causing. I will do whatever I can. Kit
March 2, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Matthew – of course I wholeheartedly accept those who convert to pro-life causes. May God bless them. But Romney is a politician. The pagans have a VERY twisted and Macchiavellian theology; they bend with the breeze. One day their church says they can have many wives, anyone with “black” blood (Africans, Polynesians etc) can’t hold the priesthood, and all abortions are illegal. But whenever needed, they always get a “revelation” from God that says whatever is necessary for the moment. So, now polygamy is forbidden (so Utah could become a state), blacks can join the priesthood (so the govt wouldn’t take away tax-exempt status after the civil rights movement) and women CAN have abortions in the case of rape, incest, malformation or if the woman’s health is threatened.
So, no, I don’t trust the pagan Romney on this or any other issue as far as I can spit. He is a politician and a pagan. I know how they are indoctrinated and I would be long in the grave before I ever vote for one.
March 3, 2009 at 12:54 am
I cannot confirm if this story is true, but I had a client who was a Mormon convert with whom I spoke about Mitt Romney, and I said I was skeptical about his pro-life record because I remember him very clearly telling my dad that he was pro-choice, and that the sudden change was odd. This client told me that he changed his position when the Mormon elders made an official pronouncement on the issue (apparently they hadn’t taken a clear stance until then). I think that is cause for legitimate concern, even as I wish Catholic politicians would be similarly open to Church teaching as he is to the pronouncements of his co-religionists.
March 3, 2009 at 10:59 am
NZIE – that is EXACTLY how they operate. If the Elder council say tomorrow that everyone must wear bananas on their head, they will all do that. Mor-bots are severely reason challenged and tow the line without a second thought…they would sincerely make the likes of Stalin and Mao proud.
Now, what is the difference between this and our Catholic curia? First, since we are based SOLELY on the bible, tradition and apostolic succession, we don’t have to worry about an infallible pronouncement to wear bananas on our head. Second, the Catholic church has always had a very HEALTHY tradition of ligitimate dissent through accademic scholarship. So, while we can admire the pagans for their loyalty to their church, we cannot admire them for their “check-your-brain-at-the-door” compliance to anything that comes down from their pagan god through the revelations of the elders.
ANY and I repeat ANY faith based on a prophet and/or his descendants is automatically flawed, since it is ultimately subject to the whims and feelings of those who have the power to speak in the name of God. And this can never end well.