Printable View
Well now that Huckabee and Trump have offically bowed out who is your money on?
I'm going to go with Pawlenty, I know the tea partiers are clamoring for someone new but I don't think it'll work out that way, their power and their willingness to truly change the party is vastly overestimated
RON PAUL 2012!
Resurrect Reagan?
Romney is the most sane and least hypocritical of them all.
Pawlenty, Daniels, or Johnson - and hopefully a combination of two of the three when it is all said and done.
Aside from the fact that they're all going to lose, I'd say PJ is probably on the money... with Romney as a wild card.
Who I would want as President? = Chris Christie (Like what I see lately and love the fact that he doesn't want the job -- healthy attitude)
Who would I like to see get the nom? = Sarah Palin (I don't think the GOP can take Obama this time around, so I'd rather see her star wane than someone more useful).
Who is likely to get the nom? = Romney (Has the funding, the organization, and all of the drecky GOP "It's his turn" crap in his favor; Gingrich will push him though, it won't be an acclamation)
You know, Romney has a lot going for him, and I think at heart he's a moderate with excellent executive skills. But people don't like him. I don't understand why people don't like him, but they don't. It's very odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Because of this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
God I miss Ted Kennedy
Ugh, why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I can't support the GOP in its current incarnation due to my stance on social issues. That said, the smartest thing they could do is have Romney run against Obama. Romney wouldn't be able to win a Republican primary because he's Mormon and they don't agree with his stance on health care. But, IMO he's the only candidate who has a chance of getting ANY of the independent voters. The rabid tea parties and Christian fundamentalists are great for pandering to the base, but they would lose independent voters. Romney is sane and can hold his own in a debate. If they had to, they could put a rabid fundie in the VP slot.
He sounds like some one I could vote for.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
A bit a flair that I admireQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Yup... minus forcing companies to report the number of minorites and women they employ in their yearly 10k. Not only is the idea aburd, as ten 10ks generally contain information about the financial health of the company, the auditors would have a field day verifying each person's "race".Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Romney "State health insurance was great when I did it in Massachusetts but Obamacare is awful" Romney?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
He's a politician who will say whatever he needs to in order to be elected.
Gary Johnson is my favorite - a libertarian governor from New Mexico. Unlike most GOP he actually sticks to his small government principles. He's against the ruinous drug war (unlike Obama), against the Patriot Act (unlike Obama), against indefinite detentions (unlike Obama) and for civil unions.
He actually came out against the drug war while still in office.
Though even if whoever runs against Obama is doomed, I hope it's not Palin - who will only diminish the party.
CR
Romney sounds like a liberal commie in that vid. Bless the nineties! :balloon2:
As for the Republican nominee, unless the economy and unemployment rate fail to improve the next eighteen months I'm not going to devote my attention to whom the GOP sends as cannon fodder. :pleased:
I'm beginning to think that perhaps the reverse is true too. That the GOP diminished Palin, turned a fine, relatively reasonable local governor into a rabid rightwing poster girl. A role which she liked so much she came to identify herself with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I don't even know to be honest. My favorite representatives of the Republican party at the moment are Bobby Jindall, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie and Charlie Crist but they unfortunately are not running. Yeah, I realize there are no women on that list but who are my options? Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachner? Call me a sexist but I'll stick to men before I vote for them. I like Romney but I just want him to flesh out some of his moderate beliefs a little more so I know exactly what I am voting for. Also as someone stated as wrong a sit is he would never win a National election as a Mormon let alone a nomination by the Republicans. Wrong? Yes, but that is how it is right now. A woman has a better chance than a practicing Mormon at winning an election in America.
TBH, i concur with this. I believe she was a decent governor and is at the heart of it really not an unintelligent woman but has been mismanaged by her advisors and demonized by the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Exactly. But so does every other politician. At least his hypocrisy is on one issue. Newt Gingrinch is claiming tthat he is all about family values when he has married 3+ times and has mistreated all of his spouses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I don't understand why libertarian minded people even bother to run within the GOP. Libertarians do not and will not run the GOP for quite some time. The GOP panders to the rich and religious bases, I don't see what the libertarians are trying to do voting for candidates that go against their own policies. Either way according to libertarian doctrine you get "big government". Stick to your 3rd party and if enough of you leave, then the GOP will start pandering to you, not before you cost them votes.
I don't think it's sexist; Palin and Bachmann are idiots. I'd vote for an aardvark before I'd vote for either of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Sorry, no. Palin and Bachmann are severely lacking as national candidates. Palin's negative polling is epic, and Bachmann is a loon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I've seen this train of thought, this debate, popping up on a lot of moderate-right blogs lately. Whom to blame for the tragedy of Palin? Some argue that it was her move into the national arena that did her in. I don't know that I buy that; and the notion that she was "mismanaged"? She was famously impossible to manage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
In the end, I'm going to lend credence to the blogger Mudflats, who has been covering the former governor since before she was a governor.
But the real question he’s asking is — What could Palin have achieved if she had a different personality, if she were not a political opportunist and had actual integrity, if she were qualified, if she knew her stuff, if she were an effective leader, if she knew how to manage people, if she were intellectually curious, if she didn’t quit? The question Green asks is really what Sarah Palin might have achieved if she hadn’t been Sarah Palin. And it’s why “What went wrong?” is a false question. “What went wrong” was Palin being who she is – consistently and predictably opportunistic. There are times when opportunity comes from doing the right thing, but there are times when opportunity comes from doing the wrong thing. It doesn’t mean that Palin changed, it just means she was true to what drives her always – her own self-interest.
Anyway, it's all kinda moot, Palin as a political force is spent. And some of the other posters in this thread have a point, that barring unforseen circumstances Obama looks very hard to beat. But then, unforseen circumstances always happen, and "hard" is not impossible. So the Republican nominee really does matter.
Barring a natural disaster or terrorist attack, Obama's reelection chances will hinge on the economy. If the economy backslides he'll go down to a credible challenger. If it makes significant gains, he'll be untouchable. If it stays the same, with unemployment high and deficits massive- I think he's vulnerable.Quote:
Anyway, it's all kinda moot, Palin as a political force is spent. And some of the other posters in this thread have a point, that barring unforseen circumstances Obama looks very hard to beat. But then, unforseen circumstances always happen, and "hard" is not impossible. So the Republican nominee really does matter.
Mudflats sounds like a hack to me. I'll readily admit that she's pretty much unelectable, but there's a lot of stuff that smells like BS in that posting. For example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
But the reality was that Palin was no energy expert. Her knowledge at the time of the oil and gas industry was so deficient that the legislature later passed a bill that was dubbed at the time the “No More Sarah Palin Bill.” When Republican Representative Vic Kohring stated about the legislation that “It’s critical all members of the Commission have a fundamental understanding of the industry they regulate, and this legislation helps accomplish that,” it was quite clear to whom he was referring.My reaction to that was that the bill sounds like one industry lapdogs would pass to limit the oversight panel to industry insiders only. So who is Vic Kohring? Mudflats offers as support a convicted felon who was indicted for bribery and extortion. Her charges don't seem as sound at that point.
Look, I'll readily admit Palin is virtually unelectable- you never get a second chance to make a first impression and her first impression on the national stage was a disaster. I don't think there's any single reason you can point to, but if I were to generalize, I'd say she brought into the national spotlight before she was ready. That in itself wasn't necessarily insurmountable, but you also have to add to that the fact that the McCain campaign was just plain incompetent. They sheltered her from the media, which only served to make them smell blood and the interviews they did choose were just bad decisions. Palin should have said no to running on the McCain ticket, stayed as governor, got more savy and grew a thicker skin. Maybe, just maybe, she could have been a serious contender this time around. But like most politicians, she was being overly-ambitious and probably suffered from a too-high opinion of herself and her abilities.
-------
On the current slate of GOP potentials, it's really hard to say who I like. I can tell you I don't like Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee or Trump- the last two of which have already bowed out. Apparently Herman Cain made a splash at a recent debate that I didn't watch, but I don't know enough about him at this point to form an opinion.
@Xiahou: you are missing the point spectacularly: her talent isn't with the deep insights or with the executive parts of government, hers is with the politicking and capitalising on the voter sentiment after success (or failure of others).
So.... you're telling me she's like 99% of all politicians?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
But more pronounced. You might want to read that article in full. ~:)
Sounds familiar. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Yeah, I did. That's how I arrived at my conclusion. Thanks for your earnest and helpful advice though. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Hmm, while I still believe Palin is a non-starter for a general election, she's bouncing back in Republican primary polling. Maybe I need to retract my "spent force" evaluation? And she reportedly just sent a 400k mail solicitation for SarahPAC. Tea leaves very hard to read.