Monday, March 21, 2011

Romney, Barbour, Daniels, and Pawlenty, Listen up!

Tony Lee of Human Events has an article today where he gives suggestions to these 4 potential 2012 candidates that he feels would allow them to, "break out of the pack". Here are some of the highlights:

Mitt Romney: Play in Iowa, attack ethanol subsidies.

Lee feels Iowa is basically a wash for Romney, so why not use it to resonate with the fiscally conservative, anti-pork voters he desperately needs in New Hampshire and South Carolina, so his campaign stops in Iowa would thus not be wasted.

Haley Barbour: Make it about the Party

Lee feels Barbour is basically a man without an issue. Yet, his track record for helping build the Republican Party while it has been down, and his ability to raise money should be emphasized. It will take a billion or more to beat Obama. Barbour should also emphasis that he leaves organizations better off than he found them.

Mitch Daniels: Embrace a muscular brand of Americanism.

First, he should emphasize repeatedly what he means by the “truce” and invoke Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s landslide win in 2009, in which he ran on a campaign centered more on jobs than social issues.
Second, Daniels needs a “red meat” issue.


Tim Pawlenty: Gamble

Pawlenty is the candidate who least offends any coalition. He is also the candidate that lacks a fervent group of supporters. Right now, it seems as if his best shot at the nomination will be if voters find him to be the least offensive candidate to nominate after not getting excited by any other candidate. But that's not enough to break away from the pack.

To read the full story go HERE.

I'm not sure that I agree with any of his suggestions. What do you think?

10 comments:

Iowan for Mitt said...

I don't buy it.

Romney is a player in Iowa. He doesn't need to turn off Iowans by taking an anti-ethanol stance.

Bad advice!

Revolution 2010 said...

The only thing I can say about Lee's suggestions is that he should stick to writing political blogs holding off on the advise.

GetReal said...

Going after ethanol in Iowa would be lose-lose for Romney. For one, he'd lose Iowa for sure. Secondly, since he didn't attack ethanol subsidies last time, opponents would paint it as a flip flop.

ConMan said...

If Romney followed that advise, not only would he lose Iowa, he'd get clobbered. That wouldn't be very wise with NH, SC, and NV right after.

Anonymous said...

ConMan is right. Ha ha. Sure, Romney should flip-flop on Ethanol--not.

Romney doesn't have the luxury to ever flip-flop on anything again. So, he's stuck with ethanol subsidies right or wrong.

-Martha

PS, I don't think Barbour should run on ability to raise money, either.

Doug NYC GOP said...

As the "Veteran" of the primaries, by virtue of his running before, Romney needs only to run against Obama.

He can take the high road and talk to folks about problems and solutions, letting the others take shots at each other and adopt the gimmicky positions.

Jonathan said...

Some of this advice is okay (Daniels or one of them) should try to seize the mantle of foreign policy advocate.

Romney does have to untie the Gordian Knot that is the Iowa Caucuses. I don't know if he should just skip it or deemphasize it but he can't win both, no one can. I'm just not sure what Romney should do about the state.

Pablo said...

While I would love to see Romney make anti-ethanol statements, I agree with some of the above commenters that it would be foolish politically. Romney is NOT, and I repeat, NOT going to win South Carolina. He can win Iowa though. If he wins Iowa then the race is over. I just like the odds of Romney only winning NH and Nevada and losing Iowa and South Carolina. Past history shows that that is not a winning recipe.

Anonymous said...

Indiana Gov. Daniels: I'm Not Running in 2012

Dave said...

Ethanol is one of the very few issues I disagree with Mitt on. In 2008 he saw it as a national security issue, which is plausible in light of the amount of energy we import....and who we import it from.

Personally, though, I'm opposed to subsidies, except in the case of defense industries, when it's necessary to keep defense research and development capability in the country. That IS a national security issue.

Unless he's changed his mind, he should, and will, stick to his guns.