Today’s Phrase for Latin Lovers

Rex in Regno suo superiores habet Deum et Legem.

Translation:
The King in his Realm hath two superiors: God and the Law. -- Henry Care (1646-1688) on English liberties and the Magna Carta

------------------

Visit Prudy's Latin Lovers Store for textbooks, readers and fun Latin miscellany!

Support this site. Buy a book.*

@PruPaine Tweets

Ancient History

|Campaign 2012 | Political Prudence

Obama: The Most Arrogant Man in the World

RightChange (and their aptly named website DontBeADonkey.com) has created a fabulous parody of the Dos Equis beer “Most Interesting Man in the World” commercials.

In it, they present “Obama: The Most Arrogant Man in the World”:

(h/t Frank Fleming)

Go to RightChange.com to view more of their videos, and follow them on Twitter.

|Campaign 2012 | Political Prudence

Does This Obama Ad Now Make His Kids Fair Game?

On the Washington Post’s website, there’s an ad headlining its pages:

Obama Children Used as Political Props in the Obama 2012 Online Ads

The ad reads:

Obama-Biden. Help the Obamas stand up for working Americans. Join our campaign. Paid for by Obama for America.

We know that Michelle Obama is meddling in government affairs to try to force Americans to eat as she dictates and subject school children to weight monitoring and ridicule. But what we did not know is that Malia and Sasha are now actively working in our government.

This ad goes beyond the typical family shots of playing football or walking on a beach or through the woods together. You know, the silent little snapshots meant to say “Look at what a wonderful family man this candidate is. Look at how lovely his non-scary, humanizing family is.”

I don’t have a problem with candidates’ families participating in their campaigns, especially if the kids are now adults. Some adult children of candidates go on the campaign trail to stump for their parent. That somewhat opens them up to public scrutiny, but unless they are setting policy and injecting themselves into government, they deserve a modest zone of privacy.

Even with the little ones, having them cutely mug for the camera or perform for the audience is no big deal—as long as it is infrequently done. Otherwise, depending upon on them to soften up the candidate’s image is exploitative to them, and annoying to us. The candidate becomes like the coworker that won’t put the pictures of her grandkids away.

But this Obama ad is treading new ground, injecting his minor children into the political arena. Now the whole family is being sold as a package: The Obamas. We don’t get one. We get all of them.

  • Think Barack Obama has destroyed the American economy? No fear. The Obamas are much more benign!
  • Need new ideas for government child-rearing? Let Sasha and Malia craft a policy for you!
  • Your mean old boss wants to open a non-union factory? The Obamas children will lay down in front of scab trucks for you!

Ugh. I find this ad distasteful. I don’t want my President’s tweens anywhere near my public policy.

Plus, if the Obamas are gonna exploit their kids in such a cheap and tawdry way, why did they have to be so cheap about it? Mr. Millionaire-Wanting-To-Pay-More-Taxes can’t afford a new family portrait? He has to crop their White House Christmas portrait photo?

By the way, who paid for that Christmas card? Was that a government expense or a campaign one? Because if it were paid by the White House, this ad is also a campaign violation for misappropriating government property, and improper use of White House resources for a political campaign.

The UK’s Daily Mail says:

This year’s portrait was shot by the official White House photographer Pete Souza, and perhaps it was his level of comfort with the family that helped create the relaxed vibe.

Seems the Obama campaign owes the taxpayers some money…and an apology to Malia and Sasha for such an off-putting use of their images.

 

|Campaign 2012 | Political Prudence

NumbersUSA Adds Up to Cartoonish Hype

As a blend of harsh and vicious Republican candidate ads saturate the airwaves of South Carolina in advance of the GOP 2012 Presidential primary, NumbersUSA elbows its way into the fight with this ad:

Jobs, jobs, jobs. Everybody talks about creating jobs, but who will get the jobs? Not one candidate is talking about why the government is ready to bring in another one million legal immigrants this year to take American jobs. Legal doesn’t make it right when there are millions of jobless Americans. Ask the candidates: Who should get new American jobs? Unemployed Americans? Or will they bring in another million immigrants? Paid for by Numbers USA at NumbersUSA.org.

This ad isn’t against the people that skip across our borders in the dark of night. It’s against all those that qualify for work visas in fields that Americans haven’t been getting enough education to fill, such as engineering, or in fields that require years of training yet pay modest salaries, such as medicine practiced in rural areas. Sure, some may edge Americans out of a job, but shouldn’t America try to employ the best and the brightest?

NumbersUSA doesn’t claim any party, but with the election all about the GOP, this ad can’t help but be taken as a GOP effort to push the candidates into their brand of xenophobia.

The Republican party has enough problems being wrongly seen as anti-immigrant instead of what they really are: anti-illegal immigration. This ad will only  solidify that misguided view.

When I watch the NumbersUSA ad, all that I’m hearing is this:

We definitely need to fix our immigration policies for those in the lower income brackets, and tweak our policies relating to high-skilled workers, to allow the U.S. to continually admit the optimum blend of eager workers in areas that Americans can’t or won’t fill. But legal immigration will not be stopped, and should not be stopped.

Ginning up animosity towards legal immigrants as a means to displace anger over our high unemployment rate won’t solve our problems created by the government’s central planning, financial boondoggles and regulatory schemes. It will only exacerbate them.

I used to think I agreed with NumbersUSA, because I made the improper assumption they were focused on illegal immigration. Now that I know they don’t want any immigrants at all, I can’t support them.

The Republican candidates need to push back against this “they took our jobs” nonsense and work to get the government out of the way of job creation for Americans.

 

 

|Campaign 2012 | Political Prudence

If I Were an Iowa Caucus Attendee...

I would show up as somewhat undecided. I have watched all the debates, been to all the websites, checked out their various interviews, even going so far as to spend hours viewing CSPAN, watching house parties and small gatherings.

With my desperate desire to pry Obama out of the White House, I am just as anxious to elect a Republican that will stop growing government, right now, not five or ten years down the road. To my mind, we have very little time left to save this country from a permanent descent into bankruptcy, socialism and worse. America as envisioned by our founders will be forever lost. Our greatness, our exceptionalism, gone.

Therefore, I want a principled candidate. I think any of our candidates can be “electable” if all the GOP coalesces around the primary victor, as we Tea Partiers are told we will need to do once a “moderate” wins. If everyone makes the best sales pitch, educates the masses, instead of tearing down the candidate like Karl Rove did in 2010 with Christine O’Donnell, we’ll do just fine.

So principles first. Electability will follow, if we chose the one the best for the country.

I’ve narrowed down my choices to three: Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry. In that order.

Michele, time and again, consistently answers questions in practically the same way I would, takes the same stand. When it comes to ideology, we’re very simpatico. Plus, she can articulate these views, and she has done very little wavering in her views over the course of her political career. Lastly, she is bold. When all the rest of Capitol Hill was a little skittish in dealing with the Tea Party early on, she boldly took up its flag—not in an effort to usurp it but to promote it and fight for its causes. She would bring remarkable vitality to the White House, no matter whether we retake the Senate.

My primary doubt about Michele is the disastrous choices she has made in selecting staff. So many backstabbers. She desperately needs to surround herself with people who are both loyal and competent. If she can outlast other candidates, the talent pool from which she can choose should widen.

I’m pleased to see Santorum having his well-deserved “surge.” But the thing that keeps him from moving ahead of Bachmann in my heart is not that he backed Arlen Specter against the conservative Pat Toomey, or the various votes he cast that I disagree with. He is a good conservative. But when I try to recommend him to others and they want to know his positions on various issues, which I’ve heard him address in numerous forums, I can’t direct them to his website for specific information. It’s frustrating. The website is rather skimpy, with just three short essays that are supposed to answer all possible questions. And so there is no concise place I can send people (or myself) to, to review all of his ideas and plans and proposals and record. Why not put it all out there, Senator? Don’t make every one of your supporters memorize all of your stances. Help us out. Let us share your beliefs with others by giving us something substantial to show them that will address the specifics they need to back you. By not using your website to lay out all of your numerous positions, it makes it seem like you want the flexibility to shift nuances later. I know you wouldn’t do that. It just gives off that feel.

Just like Michele was dismissed for a nonsensical reason (the Guardisil kerfuffle), Rick Perry should not be completely cast aside because of his early poor performances in debates. I’m concerned about his stance on illegal immigration and a few other items (like why do so many Texas conservatives not like him?), but he is improving in his communications. I’m willing to give him another chance, to hear him out.

But for tonight, I would vote Michele. If it looked absolutely hopeless for her to place in the top three or four and by casting a vote for one of the Ricks would knock Romney out of the top three, I would change my vote for them. But otherwise, at this early stage of the game, just leaving the starting gate, I would vote my heart. And that’s Michele Bachmann.

(I will update this post a little later to provide links to the candidate webites and other enlightening interviews and information.)

|Campaign 2012 | Political Prudence

The New RickRoll

Interested in finding out about Rick Perry? Want to perhaps toss him a few dollars of donations? Head on over to RickPerry.com and you’ll get quite a surprise: You’ll land at RonPaul2012.com. (In case the antics don’t survive long, SooperMexican has captured the pseudo-hijacking for all posterity in video form.)

The owner of the RickPerry.com domain has chosen to keep his identity and contact information private, but he has owned the domain since May 5, 1998.

Why May of 1998? Perhaps because that’s when Perry decided to move up the political ranks into the bigger leagues. After serving two terms as Texas Agriculture Commissioner, he opted to run that year for Lieutenant Governor. Not many people would want to cybersquat on an Ag Commish’s domain name, but a Lt. Gov of one of the largest states in the Union just might want to buy his domain name for a pretty penny if he continues to rise.

Apparently, Perry is one stubborn guy and isn’t going to negotiate with domain name squatters. The domain is currently for sale at Sedo.com for $34,950. According to Sedo, a domain resale website, the RickPerry.com domain sale page has been viewed 88 times in the past 31 days, and over the lifetime of the sale, 13 offers have been made. (Sedo also states that the RickPerry.com site itself has received only 5,883 views in the last 31 days; however, those third party web traffic estimates are notoriously unreliable. It is hard to say how accurate that data would be.)

I’m unaware how long the RickPerry.com domain name has resolved to RonPaul2012.com, but with the flurry of tweets today about the redirection of the name, it’s possible that it just occurred on Sunday. The RickPerry.com domain registration was altered on December 4. A key part of the registration information is technical data about where the domain is hosted. It’s how your web browser finds out where to go to get to the site you type in. Perhaps it is a Ron Paul fan that owns the domain, or perhaps he has come to some mutually beneficial agreement with the Paul people or one of Paul’s deep-pocket supporters to rent the domain’s internet redirection to the main Paul campaign site.

Not all cybersquatting is illegal or cause to have the ownership revoked. Tucker Carlson, right-wing pundit and owner of the DailyCaller, has famously usurped KeithOlbermann.com and has all traffic to that domain go to the DailyCaller.com. However, in order not to be an out-and-out cybersquatter, Carlson does have the Olbermann domain name go to a search results page of Daily Caller stories referencing the loony left-wing broadcaster. (It shows how Olby has lost relevancy when the most recent result found on the DailyCaller is a story from October 4.)

The RickPerry.com owner is betting that Perry will not lose his relevancy any time soon. He may very well believe Perry could be our next two-term President, as he has paid for the ownership rights to it through May 4, 2021. If Perry continues to refuse to give in and pay the guy’s price, he’ll have a saddle burr riding with him well into the sunset.

|Campaign 2012 | Political Prudence

Chris Farley Does Newt

Back when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, to celebrate the first 100 days of the Republican-controlled Congress and the Contract With America, the House Republicans had a surprise visit from Saturday Night Live comedian Chris Farley, who did a great Newt impression on the show.

The performance he gave to the meeting is hilarious. The late Farley was so respectful of Newt and seemed genuinely honored to perform for them.

See the young, but still tan John Boehner. Dick ArmyArmey. (oops! as someone likes to say.) Sonny Bono. Tom Delay.

This gem was recovered thanks to a commenter on Jonah Goldberg’s essay on the bad Bret Baier–Mitt Romney interview. Govicide wrote:

Maybe Mitt would be happier if we brought Chris Farley back from the dead and Mitt could do Chris’ show on SNL? I can see it now:

Chris: You . . . uh . . . (slaps himself) . . . you remember Romneycare?

Mitt: Yes, yes, I do, Chris.

Chris: That was awesome.

If you’ve forgotten Farley’s nervous interviewer, here’s a bit of that with Jeff Daniels:

..and with Paul McCartney

Oh, yes, Mitt would have loved Farley as his interviewer instead of Baier. (In case you missed the Baier interview, Conservative Daily News has a clip of it.)

That comment caused comedian and New York Post editorialist Rob George to tweet how Farley used to do a great Newt. Isn’t Twitter great? (Thanks also to SooperMexican, whose tweet alerted me to the Jonah essay.)

Here’s just a bit more of Farley’s Newt for your enjoyment:

|Campaign 2012 | Political Prudence

Anonymous Sources Accuse Cain of Sexual Harassment; Cain Flubs Response

Late last evening, the Politico website published a story claiming that GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain was accused of sexual harassment in the late 1990s when he was the head of the National Restaurant Association (NRA). Supposedly, two female NRA employees left the organization and received cash settlements following their complaints.

The Allegations
The story is filled with anonymous sources, and the women are unnamed. The allegations themselves seem to be rather minor in the broad spectrum of “sexual harassment.” Politico reports:

The sources—which include the recollections of close associates and other documentation—describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.

So we have innuendo and sexually suggestive personal questions as the basis for attempting to destroy someone’s career. In other words, it seems Cain’s alleged sexual harassing included nothing blatant or straightforward—at least not according to Politico’s investigation. Instead, we are in a gray area where your misinterpretation could be my innuendo.

Note also that the gestures too were apparently “innuendo” as well in that they were “not overtly sexual” but “regarded as improper in a professional relationship.” That could be anything. Furthermore, it sounds like some innuendos, questions and gestures weren’t even directed at the women themselves, but were merely “witnessed” by them.

The only other information about what the alleged “sexual harassment” entailed is Politico’s anonymous source saying they were told by a nameless board member that the unidentified complainant said “Cain had invited her up to his suite at a prior association event.” It doesn’t say that she went or that anything further happened. The story just dangles it out there, leaves its own innuendo hanging in the air.

For all we know, she said no and that was the end of it—if it ever happened at all. The only people willing to be named in the Politico piece (other than Cain staffers) say they never heard of the allegations back then and could not imagine they could be true.

The Response
Regardless of the truth or falsity of the accusations against Cain, he and his campaign staff have handled their response abysmally. The Politico states that they have been in communication with the Cain campaign for 10 days regarding the story, which would have given ample time to prepare a solid, clear, honest response.

Yet, it appears that Cain was caught off-guard Sunday morning. Politico writes:

The latest statement came from Cain himself. In a tense sidewalk encounter Sunday morning outside the Washington bureau of CBS News—where the Republican contender had just completed an interview on “Face the Nation”—Cain evaded a series of questions about sexual harassment allegations.

Cain said he has “had thousands of people working for me” at different businesses over the years and could not comment “until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.” His campaign staff was given the name of one woman who complained last week, and it was repeated to Cain on Sunday. He responded, “I am not going to comment on that.”

He was then asked, “Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?”

He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”

The Cain campaign then continued to flub the response by putting spokesman J.D. Gordon on the phone in a live impromptu interview with Geraldo on Sunday night. As bad audio crackled over the airwaves from a cell phone Geraldo held against his lapel microphone, Gordon refused to confirm or deny the allegations. He just kept repeating that people were out to get Cain, as Geraldo kept interrupting with demands that he say if the story were true.

Now the horrendous Geraldo appearance will be what the network morning shows and MSNBC air in a continuous loop today, even though the Associated Press now reports that the Cain campaign is finally calling the allegations false:

“These are baseless allegations,” Gordon said in a second interview later Monday evening. “To my knowledge, this is not an accurate story.”

Cain plans to continue with several planned appearances in Washington on Monday. He is slated to discuss his tax plan at the American Enterprise Institute, appear at the National Press Club and hold a healthcare briefing on Capitol Hill.

Had Cain gotten on top of the story when Politico first began asking about it, he could have avoided the self-inflicted wound he just delivered to himself—-a wound that may cause more injury than what it looks like the weakly presented original story would have caused alone.

If Politico’s story is fully factual, it was right to report it, so that a presidential candidate can be fully vetted—so that we can avoid the disaster of electing an unvetted candidate as we did in 2008 with Barack Obama. However, Politico owes its readership more details on what physical and verbal “innuendos” were made and in what context.

As it stands now, the website gives the reader no way to determine the extent of Cain’s guilt, if any. He’s just coated with the taint of innuendo, of something sordid, unsavory, oppressive.

Cain needs to take advantage of the so-called hot water he’s now in and wash his reputation clean of these allegations with a proper, definitive response.

|Campaign 2012 | Political Prudence

The Candidates All Get Prettier at Closing Time

Ah. What a relief that the presidential candidacy announcement season is over. I’ve been acting like one of those guys who sits at a table with a bevy of beautiful women but still can’t help scanning the room to check out all the other tables.

As one of those who has been finicky in looking over the crop of GOP candidates, I’ve felt something, someone, has been missing, but I couldn’t say specifically what or who.

I’ve anxiously watched Chris Christie being wined and dined out of the corner of my eye. I say anxious, because no matter how much I adore his no-nonsense approach to combating naysayers, I have little faith that a Republican governor of New Jersey can be anything other than a centrist. (His endorsement today of Mitt Romney rather proves my point.)

Christie’s lurking presence distracted me not because I hoped he would saunter over and take a seat at my table, but because I worried he would. So I breathed a sigh of relief when Christie gave his final “no” and walked out of the room.

I’ve also watched people trying to drag Marco Rubio into the room by his arm. The Tea Party managed to select and elect a stalwart group of young conservatives that can form a powerful core to lead the legislative branch back to sanity. I do find Rubio a very attractive presidential possibility, but we can’t have our true conservatives abandon the Senate before we even gain a majority there.

Fortunately, the freshman Florida Senator put the kibosh on that, eloquently declaring last week that he wouldn’t even accept a VP offer for 2012. Bless him for that.

And then, there was the one I had been awaiting. As my dining companions have jostled for my attention, I kept rudely craning my neck every time Sarah Palin walked by. Here she comes! Maybe she’ll take a seat this time. Aw, there she goes. But she did wink as she passed! Here she comes again. Aw, there she goes. And so on.

The poor candidates already at the table vying for my affection could do little more than talk a little bit louder, be a little bit quippier, move a little bit righter, to try to get me to focus on them.

Therefore, it surprised me that I wasn’t as disappointed as I thought I would be by Palin’s announcement that she would not run this time. She would make a superb president. But oh, what a battle that would have been.

The frenzy that the media would have gone into immediately to rip her to shreds would have been massive and passionate. The internecine war between the Tea Party and the Establishment GOP would have gone nuclear.

The 13-month fight to get Palin over the finish line would have been exhausting, and it would have sucked much of the oxygen out of the down-ticket races. Yet, with Palin now in the midst of the crowd with us instead of up on the debate stage, we have an exciting, unpredictable weapon in her to push for electing true conservatives.

All three, Christie, Rubio and Palin, seem to have found the right path for themselves and for us. With their announcements, they cleared the room of all the stragglers and re-considerers.

Now it’s just me and my table. The night is growing late. There’s no one left to distract me from giving my dining companions my full attention. It’s finally time to pit them against one another and choose my favorite from among them. They’re not all beautiful, but each does have attractive qualities.

With the 2012 election deciding the fate of our country, I don’t want to make a mistake and pick the wrong candidate. Therefore, I’m going to give them all a chance again, even those I’d previously knocked out of consideration (hint, hint, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson).

Herman Cain and Rick Perry will be under extra scrutiny now, because if they stay at the top of the pack, there’s no one new that can swoop in and bump them off the hill. I do hope that Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann can make a strong showing in the debate and move up in the set field. I think they got dismissed too early. It didn’t matter so much before because I was still hoping the perfect candidate would enter the race. But in the post-Christie, post-Rubio, post-Palin world, they might hold the best balance of qualities those candidates would have brought.

And if my wandering eye gets to itching, it turns out I can give a once-over to a bunch more declared GOP presidential candidates I’ve never heard of or have forgotten: Fred Karger, Andy Martin, Jimmy “The Rent Is Too Damn High” McMillan, Tom Miller, Buddy Roemer (yes, the former Democrat Governor of Louisiana) and Vern Wuensche.

So the Dartmouth debate will be a very important date. Each candidate has another chance to woo me. I’m looking to avoid the “dud” from the old board game Mystery Date.

I want a long-term plan, not some short-term stimulating fling. I’m not interested in someone who will beguile me with gifts and flattery or whisper sweet nothings in my ear. That’s how we got to where we are. I want a commitment to honesty and straight talk. No gamblers need apply. Baby does need a new pair of shoes, but rolling the taxpayer dice isn’t the way to get them.

All right, candidates, sweep me off my feet. I’m ready to be taken off the candi-date market. Let’s hear your best proposal.

Bonus: If the website links and debate performances still leave doubt on who is the best candidate, Reason Magazine has just hung out a matchmaker shingle to act as e-Harmony for the GOP with its Find Your True Love quiz.

|Campaign 2012 | Political Prudence

Sidelined: Obama Resorts to Spamming Twitter

As Congress has cut Barack Obama out of the debt ceiling negotiations, he’s had to try to find other ways to keep his perpetual reelection campaign on track. Jake Tapper at ABCNews reports in his “Obama Campaign Takin’ It To the Tweets” story, his latest campaign tactic is being conducted in 140 characters or less at a time:

The president earlier today tweeted a message on his campaign account @BarackObama: “The time for putting party first is over. If you want to see a bipartisan #compromise, let Congress know. Call. Email. Tweet. —BO”

(You can tell it’s “from him” because he signed it.)

That was followed by Obama 2012 staffers tweeting:

“You heard the President. So here’s what we’re doing: throughout the day we’ll post the Twitter handles of GOP lawmakers in each state.”

“Tweet at your Republican legislators and urge them to support a bipartisan compromise to the debt crisis.”

Presumably the Obama campaign is going in some kind of alphabetical order (ish) by state since staffers began with Alaska and have moved on to Alabama.

“Alaska voters: Tweet @lisamurkowski and ask her to compromise on a balanced deficit solution.

“Live in AK? Have a Republican representative? Tweet them and ask them to support a bipartisan compromise to deficit reduction.

“AK Republican rep on Twitter: @repdonyoung”…

The campaign’s digital team is spear-heading the campaign.

First, Obama’s tweet is utterly laughable. How can he bear to tweet about putting partisanship aside without giving in to the irresistible urge to add “ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!” to it? If he weren’t so adamant in putting party first, this whole “crisis” would have been over weeks ago.

Actually, that’s not entirely true. He doesn’t put party first. He puts himself first. What’s good for Barack Obama is mandatory for America. He has repeatedly said he is willing to send the government into “default” unless the GOP agrees not to mess with his reelection efforts. His bottom line: Sweep the issue of his massive, exploding debts under the rug by giving him plenty of debt ceiling cushion for budget-busting spending in 2012, or he’s gonna make us all sorry.

Second, is his campaign putting party aside? How come the compromise only deals with Republicans? The Republicans have compromised in all of their bills. Why not call the Democrats and ask them to compromise their positions and vote for one of the GOP bills?

Michelle Malkin called attention to the genius effect of Obama’s #compromise Twitter campaign: tweeting his followers with the Twitter addresses of every Republican member of Congress amounted to little more than flooding the tweetstreams of over 9 million users with hours of spam.

Mashable reported that this activity caused @BarackObama to lose over 36,000 followers.

In a humorous summary of the debacle, Allahpundit at HotAir noted: “To put it another way, he lost twice as many followers today as jobs created last month.”

Not only were Obama’s actions hypocritical and motivated entirely out of self-interest, but they also fell under the law of unintended consequences, as National Journal found that “Republican Senators, in total, added about 6,500 new followers throughout the afternoon.

***********

Related post: White House Gives Dignity and Decorum a Swift Kick in the Rump

 

 

 

 

|Campaign 2012 | Political Prudence

Bachmann Campaign Starts Rollins Downhill

Michele Bachmann has hired Ed Rollins to run her 2012 presidential campaign, a sign that she will be taking this seriously. However, her selection worries me. Rollins was a heavy hitter, who has fallen in my eyes.

I gained respect for him in the Reagan-Bush years. But the winding, not-very-conservative path he has followed, working with Ross Perot, Christine Todd Whitman and Mike Huckabee, has left me unsettled about him. His last major political act was running the Huckabee campaign in 2008, which shows how far he can take whom I thought to be a very weak candidate. (Huckabee was/is weak as a limited-government conservative. However, I think one segment of the Republican Party overlooked that because of his Christian bona fides.)

Because of the success Huckabee nearly had with Rollins at his side, a Rollins hire could be considered a coup for Bachmann to get him on her team. Many of his previous candidates have been known as quirky outsiders (and many of them have been women). That fits with Bachmann’s status, so maybe that will help her use those attributes to their loveable best.

Be careful, though, Michele. He has a tendency to not be very loyal, and to speak out of school. I simply don’t trust him, and I worry that he is as likely to damage her campaign as he is to benefit it.

And Allahpundit at Hot Air adds his take by focusing on the faux pas of the Bachmann campaign making a attack on Sarah Palin via Ed Rollins saying Palin’s not a serious person. What a pity. I like both Palin and Bachmann, and I’m not going to take sides at this early date. If Palin decides not to run, Bachmann is a superb choice for all of her followers. It’s quite an idiotic move to start alienating them before either woman has actually declared a candidacy. Read Allah’s post for more.