Senate [In-Depth Discussion] United States presidential election: 2012

I know Republicans suck, but geez...their candidates are pretty laughable this year. Hell, Trump may have been their best bet despite still being bat-**** insane.

 

I think the game plan re Sarah Palin has been to throw so much money at her through tv deals and speaking fees that she would be too busy counting it all to announce her candidacy. Even so, you get the sense the GOP mechanisms for weeding out the circus freaks have been badly impaired by the Tea Party movement.

 

Names must be considered irrelevent. If someone told me during the Dubya presidency that the next President would have the name Obama, I would have laughed until I cried. If you added a 'Biden' to that mix, so that you had 'Obama and Biden' appearing in the same sentence, I would have suffered a mild stroke. Also, Australia recently elected a "Kevin".

 

Well, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum aren't really Tea Party, they're just creepy old guys, blind to the fact that everyone sees them as jokes.

The only Tea Party candidates in this race are Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann, and maybe you can count Ron Paul. (Sarah Palin isn't going to run.)

 

I can't believe anyone would vote for a Kevin. The other guy's name must have been Craig.

 

Actually his name was John.

Australian Federal Election 2007

Although having said that Kevin was dumped by his own party barely 2.5 yrs later for a Julia.

 

A new challenger has appeared: Unhappy conservatives turn their lonely eyes to Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Yeah, he's going to be a real tough candidate to beat if he runs. I can see the headline now, "Secessionist wins presidency." I think the fact that they're trying to get Rick Perry to run for the nomination is a sign of the desperation that's running rampant in the GOP. 2012 seems to be a bust for the GOP and from the looks of things they're just trying to minimize the damage.

 

Rick Perry already said no to a presidential run, months ago. And yeah, I don't think America wants another President from Texas for a while, especially one who's most well-known for his seccessionist comments.

Peter King, the one from New York who held hearings on homegrown Islamic terrorism, said he "wouldn't rule out" a run for the presidency this week, taking everyone by surprise, but he wouldn't be a serious candidate.

 

It is starting to look like Rick Perry might change his mind. He may be a crazy Republican, but he looks more presidential than Bachmann/Cain/Santorum/Pawlenty/Gingrich/Paul. Huntsman will probably announce later this week or early next week.

The Republican debate is 8pm ET tonight on CNN. How hard will the others, like Pawlenty, be attacking Romney on healthcare and climate change?

 

Pawlenty already got that ball rolling with his Obamney care attacks on FOX.

Huntsman really should be in this debate. I'm not sure how skipping it helps his campaign's overall strategy, especially if that strategy is to test the waters for 2016.

 

Pawlenty completely wimped out on this, and failed to defend this with Romney on the stage. Pawlenty is weak, and really hurt his campaign and credibility tonight by backing down.


I think Bachmann did better than expected. Romney, Cain, and Ron Paul did ok.

Gingrich did not make a comeback. Santorum didn't get anything out of this. But neither did anything to hurt their campaigns.

As for Huntsman, it's still only June, I think he sat this one out so he could just observe everyone and learn from them, it's what Romney did with the first debate.



The only thing that surprised me was that all of them supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage (except Bachmann, Cain, and Paul).

Romney supports withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Gingrich said NASA is a case study for how bad government is at innovation.

Pawlenty hinted that he opposes free trade.

 

I think Bachmann revised her opinion at the end of that question segment, saying she would be for a constitutional amendment.

 

Tim Pawlenty's "Obamneycare" attacks over the weekend are another example of how he tries too hard to be tough. He backed down because he probably realized he couldn't fake being Mr. Tough Guy for an entire debate. He's not presidential material at all.

 

They are all awful in every conceivable way.

 

Looks like John Huntsman will announce one week from today in New Jersey.

This could either change the political calculus entirely, or, like Fred Thompson before him, lead to high expectations that completely fall flat.

He has a lot of catch-up to do, and may very well be sunk in a primary field that is currently rewarding idealogical purity over moderation. A lot of his positions will be anathema to the GOP base, despite the fact that he has many qualifying points to run on.

Romney's camp must be having heartburn right about now. Huntsman, should he gain traction, could easily cut into Romney's perceived frontrunner status, and potentially siphon enough votes in the primary states to cause a split and allow someone more conservative to win the nomination.

While such a strategy would likely be a loser for the Republicans in the general election, it makes things very, very interesting.

My personal take is that Huntsman, like Romney before him, will use this election cycle to get his name out and build a donor base and campaign network, hoping to inherit the mantle of the "next candidate" for 2016. The question becomes, how much damage does he do to Romney in the process, and does his candidacy help a more conservative individual potentially win the nomination.

Peace,

V-03

 

Here's a good article about the debate I read: Going Sane: The Republican presidential field is much less wacky than expected

Agreed, he's definitely the biggest loser of last night.

What did you think of Romney saying we should withdraw from Afghanistan? Or Pawlenty hinting he's against free trade?

Huntsman is announcing June 21st at the Statue of Liberty, which is where I hear Reagan announced (never knew Liberty Island was technically in New Jersey before).

The primary field isn't about ideology, if last night's debate is any indicator, it's about competence. Nobody once called Obama a socialist or a leftist, or tried to raise the birther issue. They just kept saying Obama is an economic failure, especially Romney.

I think Romney is no longer worried about Pawlenty, just has to worry about Huntsman and a potential Perry campaign, while keeping an eye on Bachmann.

Huntsman has already spent several days in New Hampshire, and has been visiting people like George H.W. Bush and Henry Kissinger and Republican Senators in DC. He's been laying the groundwork, I don't think he has too much to catch up on.

I too think this is more about Huntsman getting enough visibility and making a good impression this time to be the automatic frontrunner in 2016.

But I don't think he'll hurt Romney. By having someone to Romney's left, Romney will only look more conservative. His real threat is Perry.

 

My prediction is a Romney/Bachmann ticket.

Perry could upset but I don't think he is prepared and my impression of him is that he is not ready for the national stage (especially on foreign policy questions). As Darth-Ghost mentioned, Hunstman helps Romney by making him appear more conservative, while Romney already has the experience and prepwork for running for president--Huntsman has none of that infrastructure.

Bachmann is like a "competent" Palin. She takes all kinds of extreme positions and appeals to the base but without the vacant look and media-phobia.

Romney will be frontrunner and will win the primary due to big business and he will then take Bachmann as running mate to shore up the tea party vote and to diversify the ticket.

Obama will still win in the end.

 

What about Cain as a running mate? Then Romney still gets the tea party support and will create a "business competency" ticket.

 

Perhaps, but I think that Cain is too much of a wild card to make it in either slot.

I think Romney/Bachmann is likely. It gets a woman on the ticket, and it shores up the GOP's "economy credentials".

Huntsman is the type of player I would like to see back in charge of the GOP. Before he signed the bill to defund Planned Parenthood, I would also have thought that of Mitch Daniels, as well. I think John Huntsman "gets it" in terms of running a general election campaign more than anybody else in the current GOP field.

Peace,

V-03

 

How does Bachmann shore up the GOP's economic credentials? And how is Cain more of a wildcard than Bachmann?

 

I hope the candidate chooses Bachmann. She's kept her crazy in check lately, but I can't believe she won't eventually crack and let it all come pouring out

 

Bachmann doesn't, but Romney does. I consider Cain more of a wildcard because he has never held any political office, so I think that not only is he a longshot, but he also seems to have Donald Trump's penchant for working a crowd while ducking any substance, and not really caring about what comes out of his mouth.

I mean, stating his economic plan as "outgrow China!", in today's instant media world, tells me that he isn't really thinking much about what he is saying. Bachmann at least knows how to act sane (when it suits her to do so).

Peace,

V-03

 

I just read this over at The Daily Beast, and not to Godwin myself, but it really is like reading about the rise of Hitler. Hopefully she'll lose big in either the primaries or the general election, because if she manages to win...wow...

 

I don't think Michele Bachmann will be on the ticket, as the presidential nominee or VP nominee. She will excite the base and most likely win Iowa, but then just follow Huckabee's path of only winning a few odd states. I could see Bachmann ousting Boehner as the Republican leader in the House, if/after the Democrats regain the House in 2012.

Right now, if things don't change, I can see Romney-Cain. Cain was a 2008 Romney supporter, he's good with the base, but he's not as much of a wild card, I don't see him stealing the thunder from Romney (like Palin stole it from McCain) and I don't see Cain "going rogue" either. Plus he's a businessman, and it shows some diversity.

The following have consistently been ranking in polls as the GOP voters' top picks for 2012:
1. Romney
2. Palin
3. Bachmann
4. Cain
5. Paul

Take away Palin, since she's not going to run, and you'll probably see most of her support go to Bachmann or Cain.

---

On a different subject, it's weird that the GOP is slowly but surely becoming more anti-war.

*Many Republicans running for President, including Bachmann, said they would not have gone into Libya.
*House Republicans just voted to defund the mission in Libya. Yeah, it actually passed the House!
*Many Republicans, in Congress and running for President, are saying we need to withdraw from Afghanistan "as quickly as possible," including Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney!
*With the absence of Bush and McCain, for the first time since 9/11, there is not a Republican hawk running for President (except maybe Santorum/Gingrich, but they have no support)
*I've seen polls where public support for withdrawal from Afghanistan has been from 60% to 80% approving, since Osama bin Laden's death


Did anyone see this coming?

Will Republicans actually became the anti-war party in 2012 (with a minority of loud defectors),
and turn Obama (who got the edge over Hillary for being against Iraq) into the pro-war candidate???


And as for the immediate future, does this mean that Republicans are ready to cut the defense budget?



I don't think anyone could have predicted it, but even though Ron Paul will never be President, he has transformed the Republican Party into his likeness. He didn't even seem out of place at Monday's debate, unlike all of 2008's debates.

 

Well Ghost, you certainly have a knack for over-simplifying the issues....

I don't think either party is the "anti-war" party per se. The anti-war movement in the US really hasn't been relevant since the Vietnam War. But what you're leaving out is that the Obama administration just issued their official response which basically said the War Powers Act doesn't apply to it regarding Libya. No matter how one feels about Libya, or Obama, or the GOP controlled House, that's a truly bold statement. It might be unprecedented since the WPA was enacted in 1973. Imagine if you will, even as polarizing as Iraq or Afghanistan were, if Bush simply said "I don't need Congressional approval to invade Iraq because it's not a war, it's a response to a UN resolution...." He probably would have been impeached right then and there. And knowing that fact, even Bush went and got Congressional approval for both. (You can debate if those approvals were just rubber stamps and such, but the authorization was still sought and granted.)

I think everyone here at least agrees that the President needs Congressional approval to continue military action. Due to separation of powers, Congress does control the military budget, and by rebuking Congress, and even worse, ignoring the WPA completely, Obama threw down that gauntlet in a very Frost-Nixon act of defiance. Remember, an even mix of 10 republicans and democrats just sued Obama to get him to comply with the Act, and the last thing Obama needs is a Supreme Court legal battle. It looks like its an issue where both parties within Congress are truly uniting against.

After the bump which resulted from the killing bin Laden, it looks like Obama is having another tough couple of weeks. There's the challenge to the War Powers Act. There's the unraveling of "Project Gunrunner," where the administration literally allowed hundreds of illegal weapons to flood Mexico without oversight, in a program that was borderline negligent and best, criminal at worst. And now, there's the revelation that Obama might have awarded up to 200 "heavy hitter" campaign donors either cushy jobs, or government contracts. It's the very same behavior that ex-Governor Blagojevich just completed his corruption trial over, and it just doesn't look good, considering the state of the economy.