John Hawkins of Right Wing News polled right-of-center bloggers on 2012 Presidential nominees. The results (78 bloggers participating) are here. Newt Gingrich received the most support, while Rick Perry was second. Ron Paul was listed as least preferred to win the nomination. Btw, this week, Hawkins endorsed Gingrich. Complete questions and results here.
I was one of the bloggers polled. For comparison and comment, my answers were:
1) Mitt Romney
2) Ron Paul
3) Rick Santorum
4) Yes
5) No
6) Yes
7) Mitt Romney
8) Mitt Romney
See also Hot Air's survey, the WaPo's Jennifer Rubin, Ann Coulter, and don't miss Mark Steyn's analysis of Gingrich 13 years ago:
The Democrats demonised Newt as an extreme right-wing crazy. They were right -- apart from the ‘extreme’ and ‘right-wing’, that is. Most of the above seem more like the burblings of a frustrated self-help guru than blueprints for conservative government. For example, Pillar No. 5 of the ‘Five Pillars of American Civilisation’ is: ‘Total quality management’. Unfortunately for Newt, the person who most needed a self-help manual was him -- How to Win Friends and Influence People for a start. After last week’s election, Republicans have now embarked on the time-honoured ritual, well known to British Tories and Labour before them, of bickering over whether they did badly because they were too extreme or because they were too moderate. In Newt’s case, the answer is both. He spent the last year pre-emptively surrendering on anything of legislative consequence, but then, feeling bad at having abandoned another two or three of his ‘Fourteen Steps to Renewing American Civilisation’, he’d go on television and snarl at everybody in sight. . . For Republicans it was the worst of all worlds: a lily-livered ninny whom everyone thinks is a ferocious right-wing bastard.MORE:
Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal: "Gingrich Is Inspiring--and Disturbing"
6 comments:
I'm puzzled by your choice of Rick Santorum...
Can you elaborate?
Kit: Can and will, but feeling awful. Will try to respond Saturday.
Awwww, Carl; I'd hoped you'd have seen at least some improvement by now, but the last two days were really horrendous triggers. (I was feeling it quite badly myself---driving was awful.Even turning my head too quickly brought it on.)
Your test is tomorrow, right? Its not going to be fun, I'm sorry. Don't forget the mints.
Keep us posted.
Thank you for the link to Steve Sailer's ed piece. I responded at length but have forgotten which posting I added it to----Tues 12/6 , I think
Hope today is better.
Kit: A response on Santorum with only one link--
Santorum's strengths are the rule of law (including Supreme Court Appointments--he's the only one running I would trust) and foreign policy. (Yes he made one giant gaffe about going to war with China.)
On social issues, he's too conservative for me (I never debate abortion policy). But my ranking of issue importance is:
1) foreign policy
2) rule of law
3) entitlement reform
4) energy (the non green kind)
I think everyone but Huntsman is fine on #4. For #3, Congressman Ryan isn't running, and none of the candidates are all that good. So, among these clowns, I would take Santorum--even though he couldn't get re-elected in his own state.
As always, thanks for the clarity of your thinking. I stand corrected & further educated.
I still make the case that speculation about who will even be the front runner NOW, prior to Iowa and New Hampshire is a waste of time.
The only potential nominee who is almost certain to win his party's nom at this point -- in *ANY* year -- is the one currently occupying the office.
This has been true in every election since I got old enough to vote, and that's ... LOL ... a few of them.
Remember Gary Hart? Anyone? Anyone? No?
How about Hillary Clinton?
I rest my case.
Post a Comment