This is really dangerous and I may regret it and just trash the whole thing.
But someone asked me the other day what I thought of a candidate. I don’t pay much attention. As an Iowan, I will see and hear more than I want of the Republican candidates in the months between now and the caucuses in February. But right now, I don’t know what to think of any of them.
What do you think? I know there are some Obamaites out there and you probably feel excluded, but the Democratic nominee is not a big surprise, unless someone jumps into the Dem race. But the Rep side is wide open and most of the candidates seem to have some upside and some downside.
This is so dangerous, and I will delete the post if it gets out of hand. Remember this:
1) No insulting the President. I did not vote for Obama last time and cannot forsee a circumstance when I would ever vote for him. But I will not permit personal insults or ridicule of the president. Policies? Legislation? Fine. But respect the office, okay?
2) That same rule applies to others as well. We do not need to insult candidates, just discuss our pros and cons.
3) I KNOW THAT JESUS CHANGES LIVES and that politics is not the answer. You don’t need to tell me that. On Saturdays and Sundays, I’ve started just throwing out open threads without a post. I thought this might be a lively one and frankly, I’d like to hear what everyone thinks.
So, in fear and trepidation I ask you to discuss amongst yourselves: What do you think of the cadre of candidates vying for the Republican nomination?
I’m scared to admit that I’m actually leaning toward Romney right now.
Perry has lost a lot of favor down here in Texas (which happens to anyone after 12 straight years in office), but I’m not sold on him at this point as president. Gingrich intrigues me, though.
Gingrich intrigues me as well. He is number 4 on my list.
1) Ron Paul
2) Mitt Romney
3) Herman Cain
4) Newt Gingrich
I fear if Perry gets the nomination Obama will get another 4 years because of how polarizing Perry is.
Gotta ask, why the concern about Perry? You’re #1 is Ron Paul and #3 is Herman Cain. Of all the candidates, they are the two least viable in a general election.
I think if Paul wins the nomination he wins the election easily… Independents, like myself, love Ron Paul and the right will vote for any Republican nominee over Obama. Pauls biggest test is getting the nomination.
There is very little I like about Rick Perry. This comment might get me in trouble, but outside of the abortion issue Im not so sure he would do any better than Obama. The man tells people what they want to hear and Im not so sure he cant be bought. He is a people-pleaser big time and that isnt good for a president… another reason why I like Paul.
“The man tells people what they want to hear and Im not so sure he cant be bought.”
This is the sign of an accomplished politician who has learned the ropes in pulling the wool over the “conservative Christians.”
not this one…
Right now, Romney is really the only one on my list. I don’t trust Perry; he really annoyed me with the prayer rally. Not that I’m against prayer rallies, but I’m strongly against the posturing he demonstrated. None of the other candidates are really even on the radar, and I’m surprised to hear that anyone out there still supports Gingrich.
Never expected to find myself in the Romney camp, but here I am.
There are only two guys that I can see myself voting for… I almost dont want to say for all the backlash I will receive, but here it goes:
1) Ron Paul
2) Mitt Romney.
IMHO, they are the most intelligent people from either party that we have right now. Paul has some strange stuff, but I dont think anyone has been more genuine and consistent. Paul has been preaching the same message for 30 years and I think it is a good message. The same cant be said for Perry or Romney- the other two front runners.
I have Romney up there because he is the smartest economic mind running and IMHO the economy is priority one.
I think Rick Perry is more show than anything. I don’t like him at all. He makes me very uncomfortable as he is given to extremes and has shown a habit of telling people what they want to hear. Also, he does not take criticism well- I surely dont want a thin skinned president. Michelle Bachmann has a total of 2 issues that she seems well informed on. I like her views of those 2 issues, but she is simply in over her head.
I also like Herman Cain from the outset, but admittedly, I need to do more research on him. He is the only one of the GOPs I havent done my research on.
As an independent I think we need Ron Paul. He is the only person that follows through with his convictions (and has for 30 years) and doesnt compromise in the name of the “party.” Both political parties are junk, IMHO, and Paul is the only one that doesnt toe the party line.
Okay- this is just my opinion. I dont expect everyone to agree with me and it is cool by me if you LOVE Rick Perry or someone else I didnt mention. Great. Good for you. Vote for them. Im not trying to change minds, merely sharing my opinion as the post asks for.
I agree on Ron Paul, as well. He seems consistent if nothing else, but I don’t know if he’s consistently good enough to be president. But, I have a very open mind with him.
Anybody, and I mean ANYBODY would be better than what we have in the White House right now. God only knows what he’ll do in a second term.
Ron Paul. He seems to stand by his convictions and has done so for a very long time. The others seem to test the winds before making position statements. My least favorite is Rick Perry. He seems like a lot of show IMO.
All hat and no cattle?
Cain intrigues me the most right now. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I think any of the current candidates are likely to beat Obama, if they can run a good race once they get the nomination.
I know he won’t get it, but I think Cain is the most qualified guy to turn around our economy with his record in the private sector. Romney, quite frankly, carries too much baggage from Romney care and other issues. There is no way Ron Paul has a chance of being the nomination, although I appreciate a lot of what he has to say. Rick Perry is most likely to be the republican nominee for president. If they don’t alienate themselves too much, it’s possible you’ll see a Perry/Romney ticket. I personally would like to see a Cain/Perry ticket or a Cain/Paul ticket.
Michelle B. proved this week that she’s not capable of making it thru a general election. She’s her own worst enemy.
Romney and Perry seem capable. Either could beat the President. Someone like Huntsman could win in a landslide – but he’s clearly not gaining any traction
Paul is to the GOP what Kucinich is to the Democratic Party. Maybe if Rick S. were a current US Senator instead of former, he’d have the ability to fundraise and be competitive. Cain is an oddball. He’s a less exciting version of Trump. We’re never going to elect a President with zero experience in elected office.
Gingrich’s time has passed. He seems impressed with himself on stage and clearly thinks using the vocab of a social scientist makes him sound intellectually superior. I see Huntsman and Romney much more as “thinkers” than Gingrich.
T-Paw ran a poor campaign. His background and record should have made him a serious challenger for the nomination.
“We’re never going to elect a President with zero experience in elected office. ”
We have before:
Taylor, Grant, Taft, Hoover, and Eisenhower
All of those men had extensive experience in government (and certainly politics – even though not holders of elected office)
Taylor (a distant relative) was also a military leader as was Grant and Eisenhower. Taft – while not an elected official – held a number of appointed positions (Appeals Court Judge, Secretary of War, Solicitor General). Hoover was Secretary of Commerce.
All were recipients of a government paycheck.
I don’t see a real “outsider” with no experience in politics/government getting elected.
Aaron, I was responding to what you first said:
“We’re never going to elect a President with zero experience in elected office. ”
And, who knows….perhaps we might be coming closer to a time when more and more people are sick and tired of candidates who have relied upon government paychecks?
I can remember when John Y Brown was elected governor of our state yet had never held elected office before. He was pretty good even as a democrat. Brought our state government into the computer age…finally.
Gingrich makes a GREAT backbencher but he scares me because of what he was willing to do to two ex-wives. One with cancer at the time.
Unfortuantly, I will hold my nose and vote for the republican…whoever that is.
Talk about “over their head”…Obama is completely over his head. At least Bauchman would bring some sane economic principles to the office.
Unfortuantly, I will hold my nose and vote for the republican…whoever that is.
Nothing, absolutely NOTHING matters more than making Obama a one term president. From the recent elections, we’ve got the left on the ropes–we need to finish the job and hurt them–badly.
In my state, a vote for Obama is virtually meaningless, but I will vote Obama, nonetheless. My guess is that his opponent, at this time, will be Romney. Regardless of who wins, neither man will be able to do a large amount of what was asserted in the campaign. To date, Obama has not fought as hard as I would prefer (e.g., health care, consumer protection agency), and I wonder how he will do with his current jobs initiative. If Romney becomes President, he might surprise me given his tendency to work both sides of an issue. If Obama is elected, there is a chance that political bickering will settle down a bit, and Republicans will await 2016, but without being obstructionist. But if a Republican is elected in 2012, the dems will likely do what the repubs have done in the last three years.
Interesting how when Republicans oppose the president it is “obstructionism”. They were elected by the American people to oppose the President’s agenda, were they not?
could the ‘obstructing’ charge be seen as valid if they were opposing something that they had previously supported ?
I don’t hear ‘obstructionists’ so much as I hear ‘do-nothing’ around these parts from people in my community.
There’s a HUGE difference between ‘obstructionists’ and a ‘do-nothing’ party.
Dave, you said, “They were elected by the American people to oppose the President’s agenda, were they not?” First, I am not at all sure anyone could draw that conclusion with any certainty–yes, they were elected, and yes, many of them opposed his agenda, but is it not possible they were elected to accomplish something rather than to just oppose his agenda? Was opposition the total content of their agenda? If so, it was remarkable short-sighted of the electorate. Second, if you are correct, then it was to be a short-lived and virtually meaningless victory, I might even suggest it was close to being Pyrrhic. I say this because all that has happened is total gridlock in government. No President Obama has not achieved his objectives, but neither have the American people, assuming only that “their” agenda is to have decent-paying jobs, a healthy economy, and a country they could be proud of and be free in. Total unemployment is, what, still over 9% with double that in many minority groups. The stock market is still reeling and tottering, and could collapse into a double dip recession, or even a full-blown depression, with very little effort. Our retirement accounts have taken hit after hit, including those of us with the Annuity Board or whatever its current name is, and much of the rhetoric on the political right is about abolishing Social Security or privatizing it (in which case, refer back to what has happened to our retirement accounts), which scales the doodley-woodley out of me and others my age (59) unless they have military or other pensions to fall back on besides that of their second career. We are still bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq draining dollars and lives, we still have terrorists and terror-threats, and we still have Gitmo. This gridlock is why, in my great political expertise (LOL), the President’s approval rating is at 23% and Congress’s is half that, at 12%. I would like a conservative government (yes, me), but I want one that has a positive agenda and can accomplish something. Truth be told, I’d rather have a liberal one that accomplished something than one–like ours now–that was in gridlock regardless of their beliefs and notions.
John
The political thrashing the left took in the last election was the result of their and Obama’s attempt to ramrod Obamacare down the throats of the American people. Hopefully, people will continue to remember his socialst agenda and turn him into the next Jimmy Carter come November of ’12.
John, When they “accomplish” something we get huge unsustainable government programs such as Obamacare. I prefer they start “dismantling” such things. The last thing I want is for them to “accomplish something”. No telling where that will take us.
Businesses and banks are in a holding on pattern because they do not have faith in our future. They do not trust this president yet they play the fence just in case. So much of economics is sheer psychology.
“Businesses and banks are in a holding on pattern because they do not have faith in our future.”
a ten-year holding pattern ?????
Okay, John, let me try to reword that. Republicans were elected in droves based on a vision that is different from the president’s liberal agenda. The Republican house has passed a lot of laws that die in the Senate. So, why do we not call the president obstructionist, or the democratic Senate.
Here’s the thing, Bapticus Hereticus is a hard core liberal both theologically and politically. I think he would admit that. So, he sees the Republicans as obstructionist because they are preventing the president from doing what he wants to do – which BH supports fully.
I vote for my congressman enthusiastically because I know he will vote against the Obama agenda. Frankly, gridlock is better than what Obama was doing in the first two years that he had a majority.
So, I think the Republican House HAS a “positive agenda” – it is just different from the radical agenda of the president and the Senate. So, to call the Republicans obstructionist was silly. Each side is trying to obstruct the other side and adopt their agenda. Why blame Republicans?
Frankly, gridlock is better than what Obama was doing in the first two years that he had a majority.
And much better than what and the left WANTED to do. Thank God word got out about what they were going to try to pass with health care reform.
It is very hard to undo what has been done. We never seem to learn that. The Senate republicans do not want to do an up or down vote on wiping out Obamacare because they do not have the override votes. That suits Obama just fine since it does not go in effect until after his re-election. Then, all Gehenna is going to break loose. Except for those 1000+ organizations that got waivers from Obama. Including Federal Gov employees.
It will be interesting to see how people are going to respond to the price tag on the health care they MUST purchase as it is now the law.
And since the fine is lower than what a company pays to offer health insurance, many companies will simply drop health insurance. The individual will be forced to pay for government health care because it will not be free as they thought.
So, why aren’t the candidates talking about this more? It is the biggest piece of the recovery pie and everyone in business knows it.
OK Dave, that is a little better. But let me make a couple of points.
First, there have been times that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have been “obstructionist,” in certain limited areas if not generally. There have been times the Republicans have held up or obstructed a Democatic President’s judicial nominees, and times the Democrats have held up or obstructed a Republican President’s judicial nominees. I am not talking about geuine concerns over a nominee’s competence or background after a fair hearing, but simply one side or the other playing politics. My point here is that both sides know how to play the game, and it is one that has been played in congress since we had a constitution, actually even when we just had the Articles of Confederation and before that, a Continental Congress.
But my main point is that when this “game playing” (or politics as usual if you prefer) extends to everything, to simply shutting things down, it is self-defeating. It is self-defeating on a national level for the same reason that it is self-defeating in the church. The absence of negatives is not the same as the presence of positives. In the church, if you have a problem, and you eliminate the problem, it does not automatically make people happy, or satisfied, or content. They may be glad the problem is no longer there, but that does not last long, because they soon forget the problem, and unless there is something positive that happens, they are discontent, dissatisfied, and grumbling. This is the problem faced by “problem-solvers” at any level: a church, a club, or a government at any level, because the absence of negatives (say in this case, President Obama’s agenda being implimented) is not the same as the presence of positives (getting something done). This is the same problem faced by political conservatives at any level, because “conservative” at its root means to refrain from action, to maintain a status quo, and that often translates to obstructing an active agenda. It can be done–but it is self-defeating, because it fails to provide positives. Conservatives can have a positive agenda, but it takes work, it takes more than 15 second sound bites, and it takes more than just being “the party of ‘NO!'”
John
If Romney is the nominee, he is going to have a hard time explaining why Romneycare in MA is different than Obamacare. He has that presidential look, though.
I’m not sold on any of the candidates yet. I like Ron Paul but don’t think he will be nominated. I like Gingrich too but his multiple divorces concern me. Romney has several great qualities but I do have a serious question for you all based on how much positive attention he is receiving here among us Baptists. Does it concern anyone to vote for a cult member for President? How would the election of a cult member promote that cult? That is my concern with Romney even though I guess he would be better than Obama.
I thought Bachman might turn out to be everything we hoped Palin was. She’s not. Perry looks like Bush III and two were more than enough (I liked Bush I). Gingrich has absolutely no moral authority. I can’t imagine Christians voting for him. Paul makes sense when he’s not sounding like a kook, but he’s not viable. Nor is Cain. What little I’ve seen of Huntsman looks good, but he’s not enough of a wild eyed zealot to satisfy the tea party. Kind of leaves Romney. No idea if he’s electable.
I don’t think Perry resembles the first President Bush at all.
I know that President Bush (1st one) was a Texan, but he reflected in his persona so much that I hold dear that is found in New England people. Perry does not at all.
I can’t see your comparison of the two men, Bill.
None of the Republican candidates are a dream. But any of the major candidates, in my opinion, have more experience and demonstrate more leadership capabilities than our current President.
Obama is a great speaker. He is a great representative in many ways of what is good about America.
But his performance has been terrible, in my opinion. I really don’t get the sense that he knows what he is doing or that he has the background or resume to command respect when he enters the room. I disagree with him on many, but not all, policy issues. But my biggest disappointment with him is not in the policy choices that I knew he would make when he came into office, but with the sheer lack of energy and command. He seems really small.
The latest example is his jobs “bill.” I put that in quotes because as I understand things, the actual legistlation or “bill” has still not been sent to congress.
So, with that said, I will ramble and say the following:
Ron Paul has some economic ideas that I agree with, but on foreign policy he is just not realistic. Obama had some of the same thing, hence Gitmo is open, we are still at war in 2 places and have added a 3rd. etc. That’s the way the world is. And since the job of Commander in Chief is the most primary (because it cannot really be checked by Congress – except in funding, and that is a card that is never played) job the President has, I cannot vote to elect a person who is so unrealistic. Also, on the economic issues, what can Ron Paul do if his program is not adopted? He has to get a solid majority of 535 elected people to go along with him. If they don’t, then what? That’s the problem with libertarians. I agree with them in many instances, but they don’t get elected most of the time. If they do, they usually don’t influence others to join them. He is a purist on the economic issues, and I applaud him for that.
Romney has a great deal of good experience. Governor of a Blue State, years at the highest levels of finance – earned money in the real world at a job and did really well. I cannot remember the last national Democrat could say that, which is really sad. I wonder how convictional he is on many issues, however. But he does have leadership.
Perry has good experience in government and he is convictional in many areas that I agree with. He is a little “rough” in his presentation for me, and just doesn’t seem that smart. He has said some silly things. Also, I wonder if all the stories about his sexuality are going to hurt him in the long run. I would be interested in the thoughts of you guys from Texas on that. I have a friend in Texas who told me years ago that there were stories. He is a Perry supporter, but he was very worried when they first surfaced. If he is the nominee, these stories will surface again. I do not want the Republican equivalent of Bill Clinton. Is it all made up? Who knows. Is some of it true? Who knows. I just don’t want to see some stripper or a gay guy having a press conference ala Gennifer Flowers at year from now and the Republicans scrambling to address it. Also, don’t like Perry on immigration.
Bauchman. She speaks clearly. Is accomplished. Is clear where she stands (why is it you can get straight answers from the Republican women, but the leading Republican men can be so wishy washy on some issues). But she is a little like Palin as a “microwave” candidate. That’s why she is so gaffe prone. It takes time and years (or at least it should) to learn how to lead in politics at this level. But as far as commitment and being straightforward, I like her.
Gingrich. Used to love him. He is so all over the board, however, that he doesn’t seem to have any discipline. I still like to hear him speak, but he is more of a think tank guy than a leader at this point. He shouldn’t have trashed Paul Ryan’s plan either.
Herman Cain. Love him. He should not be president. There is a reason why CEOs of companies don’t make it through the Presidential process. CEOs are CEOs. The role of President and the 3 branches of government and all of the moving parts do not suit strong business executives because they don’t have the same level of command and control. Also, Cain is a microwave candidate, in my opinion. If he had served a term or two in a high profile political office, he would be great. But he hasn’t. He is just another in the long list of business leaders whom everyone thought would make a great politician but won’t. Perot, Trump – go ask them. Look at how poorly Bloomberg is doing in NYC.
Mike Huckabee – yay! He is not in the race to mess things up.
Huntsman – to me he is a closeted Democrat.
Santorum – decent guy. Very little gravitas.
So, after all of this I would have to say that I believe Romney would fair best. I hope that evangelicals will be able to transcend identity politics to vote for him, but I have my doubts.
But again, any of these people would be better than the current state of affairs. Mr. Obama has been a huge disappointment. He may get re-elected, but I hope not. I am truly concerned that his prescription for the economy (i.e. more debt) is a bad course.
We need some change of direction.
I see you got the DNC talking points. :0) First, it was trash Texas all over talk radio and on blogs even though Texas has felt the current economic burden less than most states. Now, it is go after Perry.
I only say this because a friend of mine has a son working for the DNC and she shows me the current talking points sent out to the field. And I have seen the progression of the talking points on Texas and Perry.
I am not a big fan of Perry but I will hold my nose and vote for him over Obama. Compared to Obama, at least he has some free market principles. The problem with Republicans is they are not as monolithic a voting block like Democrats are.
The problem for Obama would be when we only focus on the issue of the economy and ignore our candidate foilables as democrats do. If our focus is: “it is the economy, stupid”, Obama loses big time. Even James Carville gets it this time.
But Republicans/conservatives/liberaterians/independents never do that. And that is why Obama may have a second term. There are people here admitting they won’t vote for the republican nominee if it is not their guy.
As to the Texas economy, yea maybe we’ve faired better than *some* states. However, income inequality is bad here. The poverty rate is booming. My does economic development in Central Texas. It’s been quite a challenge trying to lure employers to this part of Texas with jobs that pay a family-sustaining wage. $8 an hour at a call center doesn’t pay the bills.
I really was tempted to vote in the GOP primary for Kay Bailey. Wish she would have committed to that campaign. She wasn’t prepared to fight Perry.
I am not a big fan of Perry but I will hold my nose and vote for him over Obama
I will vote for whoever the Republicans put up against Obama. There is nothing more imortant than making him a one term president.
Hi LOUIS,
I think Paul Ryan’s plan was based on data from a ‘think-tank’, the Heritage Foundation. At least, I think he himself referred to the Heritage Foundation as a resource.
Unless someone else jumps in it will be either Romney or Perry. I like Romney for president, not for pastor.
Paul has less than a snowball’s chance in gehenna, libertarianism is, as Krauthammer said, not a governing philosophy.
I like Ron Paul, but I happily admit that I listen to Krauthammer before anyone else when discussing politics.
I’d probably go for Romney or Perry primarily because I think they would be the ones who could get elected and be able to govern. But the Presidency means little without also electing a Republican house and senate.
Rick Perry is my current choice. I like many things about SOME of the others. Rick Perry is extremely pro-life – he has signed very a strong parental-notification bill. He is a genuine believer. He has signed very strong tort-reform bills (recently signed a great “loser-pays” bill). I admit that I do not understand what he was thinking when he signed the Gardisil executive order. I do not think he is perfect, but he currently has my vote. I want to vote for a genuine evangelical when possible.
I could not vote for a Mormon (especially Romney with Romneycare and his staunch pro-choice views not long ago. And then Huntsman is in favor of civil unions). I served with the IMB in Japan for 10 years. I can tell you that Mormons already try to fly under the name of Christianity overseas where people think all Americans are Christians. If we elect a Mormon president, it will give open doors to Mormons missionaries around the world. I am not against freedom of religion, but I could never vote for a president who is a Mormon.
Have you read ‘Fed Up’ by Perry ?
If so, did this contribute to your support of him ?
So, far, this discussion has been enlightening, without being heated.
I like a lot of what I hear about Perry, but I don’t know enough of him.
Romney has done well as an executive in the past, but voting for a Mormon would be tough (I agree with William, though, we aren’t electing a pastor.)
I could not and would not vote for Ron Paul, because of his foreign policy, which is so wrong-headed as to be dangerous, in my humble but correct opinion.
Right now, I’m probably one of those Romney/Perry guys. A lot of our people heard Pawlenty speak and really liked him, but he dropped out way too quickly.
I really like Herman Cain, too,
I really liked Cain last time, too. I cannot understand why he cannot get traction. Like Reagan, he has overarching principles that guide him.
Can you imagine…..two African American men running against one another for president with completely opposing views! That would be awesome and instructive for us all. It would be the culmination of what Frederick Douglass wrote about so many years ago.
I’m very unsure of who I like for President right now. I liked some of what Bachmann was saying, then I though Perry might be the guy. But, I’m not so sure anymore. I really have reservations about a lot of the other ones running.
BUT, one thing I can assure you of…I will be voting for anyone, and I mean anyone, who runs against Obama. If Bubba, the dogcatcher from Myrtle, MS was running against Obama, Bubba would get my vote.
I mean, all you have to do is look at the solar panel energy company debacle…what was the name of it? Solyandcle, or Solodyancle, or SoldtheUSAout, or whatever the name of it was…$500 million dollars of tax payers money down the drain…and now, Obama wants us to study dust….that’s right, dust. I wonder how many of our tax dollars would go down that toilet?
Go Bubba!
David
Aaron, if you have some substance, fine, but unsubstantiated and very damaging rumors are not really fair.
Hey Dave,
So my comment was deleted and you chastise me while saying nothing to Louis??
Did you even bother to read LOUIS’ comment that I was responding to. I didn’t bring up the rumors. Louis did. Louis was asking for the input of Texans. And since I’m in Texas, I responded.
Here is what Louis wrote above about Perry:
“Also, I wonder if all the stories about his sexuality are going to hurt him in the long run. I would be interested in the thoughts of you guys from Texas on that. I have a friend in Texas who told me years ago that there were stories. He is a Perry supporter, but he was very worried when they first surfaced. If he is the nominee, these stories will surface again. I do not want the Republican equivalent of Bill Clinton. Is it all made up? Who knows. Is some of it true? Who knows. I just don’t want to see some stripper or a gay guy having a press conference ala Gennifer Flowers at year from now and the Republicans scrambling to address it.”
Just to add: Louis didn’t make anything up. The rumors (which I don’t buy myself) have been around for quite a while and have, most recently, been mentioned in the Austin American-Statesman, Houston Chronicle, and a number of other papers. The rumors received coverage because a Ron Paul supporter took out a nasty ad in an Austin paper targeting Perry.
No, I did not read all of Louis’ comments. I’ve paid little attention to this site today – focusing mostly on great Yankee and Hawkeye comeback wins.
If you don’t buy the rumors, what is the purpose of raising them? I thought that was unfair.
I do not believe your original comment (deleted) referenced Louis’ so I didn’t go back and check.
And hopefully right now, a Boston loss.
I wasn’t meaning to chastise you exactly. I just was explaining why I deleted the comment.
Oh, I meant to say the DNC seems to be more afraid of Perry than anyone else.
I really like Herman Cain. He has an extensive record of turning companies around. In the Atlanta area we have had the privelage of listening to his radio show for the last few years on the big AM station. He also seems to be the only one who has proposed anything solid for the economy in a debate with his 9 9 9 plan. His comments on muslims have been the biggest problem so far with him.
I was planning on voting for the ghost of Alexander Hamilton. Having lived in Memphis, where dead voters are the #2 demographic at the polls, I figure it’s time to vote for a dead candidate.
Honestly, if the Republican party can nominate someone a little bit towards the center, he’ll win. (I say “he” because the current female names are not toward the center–Bachman, Palin). I don’t think President Obama’s base is strong enough to get him reelected against someone with a different plan.
Of course, if you get someone who is way to the right, that will help his re-election chances. I haven’t seen enough of any of the R folks to know who I like. Romney seems to have some issues from how he ran Massachusetts, I got aggravated with Perry over grandstanding with religion, and I’m not sure if business sense is enough, though Herman Cain seems to be good with that.
I was going to run, but my campaign finance situation is too tight. Any donations can be mailed to me. Please send unmarked, nonsequential small bills and don’t look for a receipt 🙂
All:
I did not see BDW’s response, so I can’t comment on that.
For those of us who live outside of Texas, the stuff about Perry is brand new.
But in reality, it is not new, or is it unknown.
But for those in Texas, they have been around a long time. All you have to do is hit google and you will pull up a bunch of articles.
I am NOT bringing it up because I believe or do not believe what has been written, but it has been a staple of Texas politics for sometime now. I wanted to know about how the Texas guys and gals have responded and believe that will be processed.
I am fine with believing the best about someone until it is proven, but I don’t want to have to deal with this in the Republican candidate, and I have no idea if these stories have legs, so to speak.
I do not believe Obama is a Muslim. But a lot of people did, and it was discussed. I believe that the best evidence is that Obama was born in Hawaii, but that issue was kicked around forever.
Poor Sarah Palin has been the subject of the worst kinds of stories, all of which have proved to be untrue. In the end, she has come out more admired because of the way she has handled those things. Her downfall has been her inability to articulate clear answers in interviews. She, like Obama, is a great speech maker.
I actually think that she is smart and has really good leadership instincts. But she has stumbled at the wrong time and in the wrong place.
I think that we are being naive if we think that this issue is not going to be discuss in the national race, at some level.
I believe that we can discuss this fairly.
But I don’t think we should ignore it.
Thanks.
I agree with you, LOUIS.
‘whisper campaigns’, as these ‘rumors’ are called have been a part of the American political scene since the time of Thomas Jefferson.
The thing that has ‘magnified’ their potency to cause unfair harm to innocent candidates is that NOW, the advertising agencies hired by the big-money backers of candidates use very polished techniques to slander their opponents. And if the public is not educated as to how this is done . . . then they cannot guard themselves from being ‘conned’ by the lies all the way to the voting booth.
When I think a hideous political rumor, I think of the pain that McCain and his family were put through by the ‘whisper campaign’ to do with his adopted child from Bangladesh.
That is a case, where not just the candidate was targeted, but the whole family was meant to be hurt.
Perry’s wife is not someone I want to see hurt. Surely no candidate would put himself ‘out there’ if his integrity would not protect his family from pain? I must hold to that thought, unless I am proved wrong.
I still haven’t made up my mind about which ‘Pub I want to see as President. I’m not really sure I care because I’m voting for whoever is running against Obama.
I was an Obama supporter last time around, partly because of what I saw as a dangerous Republican field (Palin one heartbeat away from the Presidnecy, and John McCain with, to use a Southernism, one foot in the grave and another on a bananna peel), partly because I was fed up with Bush/Chaney/Rove machinations (including what I saw and still see as pandering to the religious right without any substantive work), and partly because his campaign successfully portrayed him as reasonable, as one willing to work with those with whom he disagreed, and for change in the status quo. I have been disappointed, even though his opponents must take some of the blame for ineffectiveness.
Looking at the first tier Republican candidates, I am feeling better and better toward Romney, although his religion still bothers me. The positive about him is that he is not willing to compromise his goals to please extremists. Note I said “goals” and not “beliefs.” I think his goal is to make America work again, not to try to make all America conform to his belief system, whether religious or idealogical. The others in that tier–Bachmann and Perry–are playing too much toward the extremists on the far right, plus their (dare I say) incompetence and lack of Presidential timbre is showing–by which I mean they make better candidates playing to their base than they would President–a common problem in American politics and history. They are squeaky wheels rallying disaffected and disappointed people. Being against something (or someone) is the easy way to get “support,” which we see in American life in general and in churches in particular. But being against a negative, even overcoming the negative, is not the same as establishing a positive, and America needs some positives, some real victories.
In the second tier, I think I like Huntsman, but (1) I don’t don’t enough to say more and (2) unless he makes some significant inroad and soon, knowing more about him is moot anyway.
It looks to me like either Romney or Huntsman might appear to the broad “middle” without which neither extreme or party has much hope of winning the general election. Last election, Obama won that middle. I doubt that Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, or Paul can do that, or at least they would have an uphill battle to do so, and would almost give Obama a second term on a silver platter.
John Fariss
John, I agree. People support the “religious right” without even knowing what’s involved in that. Palin is strangely “religious-right.”
I like Mr. Cain, but I think he would make a better Chairman of the Fed or Sec of the Treasury then President. I think Rep Bachmann would make a great VP, and think the VP “race” should basically be between her and Gov Jindal. Who ever wins the nomination would be hard pressed to pick anyone better than those two as their running mate. For me Gov Romney is a little too much “centrist” just like former President Bush, and we need a full out conservative in office (but he would be far better than Obama hands down). Rep Paul is a little too much libertarian for my tastes. His isolationist tendencies are a little extreme in my opinion, as he would pull us out of places like South Korea, and dismantle most of our bases over seas. That would be a very very big mistake in my opinion. That basically leaves us with Gov Perry. While he may not be perfect, I do think he would make a great candidate and a great president. Pair him with someone like Jindal or Bachmann, and you have a great pair to go against Obama/Biden.
What I really would love is for the Republican candidates to stop attacking each other! We need them to come out and say “yes we have differences of opinions on some topics…here are our differences. BUT we all pledge to support who ever the Republican Candidate is, and do whatever it takes to help them win the election!” If they came out with that solid front, we might see some real change! But alas, politics in Washington always brings out the worse in people.
something tells me this 2012 election might, in large part, be about ‘granma’ . . .
from what I hear in my neck of the woods, Social Security AND Medicare are and always have been much valued programs and ‘the talk’ urging to privatize these programs is not very popular at all.
It’s going to get interesting!
I have no idea how many people are running and if I had to guess I could maybe name two. Not that I actually know anything about them, nor could I pick them out of a lineup, everyone I know seems to mention their names a lot and complain which is why I know who they are. I am beyond apathetic about politics.
I saw an interview with Rick Santorum recently and he seemed pretty impressive. Anyone have any opinions about him?
He has roused himself out of a funk here lately and looks better. He has no chance although I like him, but less than Romney, Gingrich, Cain, and Perry.
Notice how he always looks sad and whinny. I can’t see him going anywhere at all.
The Democrats gave us the Welfare State and Abortion State. The Republicans gave us the Warfare State and Corporate State. I’m not voting the lesser of two evils this time. I’ll be voting for the Constitution Party nominee. http://www.constitutionparty.com/
Would anyone here be willing to say that President Obama will be re-elected in 2012?
Yes, I think he has a good chance of re-election, especially if the Republican candidate were to ‘self-destruct’ . . .
Would anyone here be willing to say that President Obama will be re-elected in 2012?
God, I hope not. And hopfully the thought that he might get re-elected will be enough to motivate Christians to get out and vote the way the Bible would have us vote–against Obama.
I hope not as well, but I will be surprised if he’s not. He’s playing “us-vs-them” politics almost as well as a Baptist, so it’s going to depend on how many people count themselves part of his “us” next November.
President Obama will be elected in 2012 . Saying that on this blog is like a popsicle attending a marshmello roast but it will go that way in my opinion and I will feel very good about it .
Obama’s unpopularity makes his reelection at least deeply in doubt. I’ve watched his rating’s fall nearly 20 points in the last couple of months (from +10 to nearly -10).
Tom, Jack and Christiane, you may want four more years of Obama (a truly horrifying thought to me), but a Republican who runs a good campaign will probably win fairly easily.
“a good campaign” . . .
well, DAVID, it’s definitely possible, but I recommend that the Republican candidate hold lots of town hall meetings (please, no ‘entrance fees’); be open to interviews on all the news stations, and for goodness sake, expect to be asked some really tough questions from the moderate and liberal media . . .
I am actually looking forward to the campaigns, and I hope that whomever is chosen as the Republican candidate will be open with the American people and their concerns
. . . tough questions will be the order of the day, so it won’t be easy for any candidate, but Americans need to know where a candidate is on the issues. The ‘sound bites’ and fancy commercials aren’t comprehensive enough to do the job.
Most Americans will want to see the town-halls, and the really important interviews, as well as the debates that will come.
One thing: a candidate should never shy away from a question from a town-hall audience; or if they don’t like the question, try to have the questioner removed from the hall . . . .
it gives the wrong impression about their ability to articulate their stand on the issues in the face of examination from the public.
Dave Miller:
I am not really saying that I want 4 more years of President Obama.
You say:”but a Republican who runs a good campaign will probably win fairly easily.”
I’m just saying that I do not see any of the possible Republican Candidates that can beat him.
That is just my opinion–no more or no less.
IMO it all depends on the economy. If the trend continues the way it has been going the president is going to have a tough time getting reelected. But we should never underestimate the power of the incumbency.
John Wylie:
You make two excellent points. The economy is going to determine the next president and the power of the incumbency is often difficult to overcome.
Tom, What did Obama have going for him personally in 2007 that is so much more superior to what any of the republican candidates have today?
Lydia:
I do not think that he scared people like some of the Republican Candidates of today.
I think when the majority of the American people listen to folks like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, etc, it truly scares the majority that these folks could be the President and that they will not be elected as President.
Just my opinion.
You’re right. Not everyone realized he was as agressive a socialist as he turned out to be. Heck, even the people that opposed him didn’t know what he really was. I don’t think anyone could have predicted what he tried to ram through with Obama-care. We’re very lucky word got out what he was trying to do before he trashed the greatest healthcare system in the world.
I tend to agree with Tom. Unless something changes in the Republican field (and of course it may, but I am basing this on the current status and trends), the candidate(s) who have general election electability will probably not win enough (if any) primaries, and the candidates who can win the primaries lack general election electability. Why? Because the far right (i.e, the Tea Party and the “religious right”) will probably decide the primaries, and both of them see compromise as the kiss of death. However, their preferred candidates lack the “stuff” to appeal to the middle, which means Obama has a good change of taking the middle just as he did in 2008 and with the left and middle in his column, he can win the election. You can get the Republican nomination with the mid-west (i.e, Iowa and such states), the South, and a few solid Republican states, but that will not get you the general election.
John
Dave , Your REPLY # 72 Says quote , ” Obama’s unpopularity makes his reelection deeply in doubt.” I see the same poles you do. I didn’t vote for him the last time – and he’s only unpopular in certain circles, evidently the ones you travel in . I’m finding many first time voters for Obama. Even the SBC is shying away from choosing sides as they can’t stand the reprocussions from the skul-duggery that’s taking place now in the House. One example is the Bill in the House by republicans that modifys the government entity National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and has included provisions to make it even easier to export businesses and jobs overseas – why ? for cheaper labor and more profit and the word is out.
Marco Rubio would be the best choice but he won’t run this year. He will be the VP and then win next time he can. He will be the first Cuban-American president. His first executive order should be to make all Cuban restaurants give 50% discounts and introduce an American public addicted to Big Macs and Taco Smell the glories of Cuban food.
We must not allow a cult member into the White House. If you think the Mormon church is growing now, just wait till after Romney wins if that is what happens. Cult member cannot be trusted. How can we trust a guy who wears sacred underwear and believes that he will be God one day?
Something to think about–if Obama is not re-elected (please oh please oh please let that come true) and you live near a fairly sizeable city (Chicago, Nashville, Atlanta, etc…) then you need to stay home for at least the day after the election, maybe longer. Two words for you–“L.A. Riots”. And unless you want your car or home vandalized, you will want to remove any signs/stickers that supported the Republican candidate.
I for one will be celebrating, but I won’t do it publicly for fear of injury.
What we need in a presidential candidate:
Intelligence: (sorry, but some of the big name pubs don’t have it) The person has to be able to think on their feet, rather than sticking like glue to talking points.
Knowledge: They don’t have to have served elective office, but a working knowledge of history, politics, foreign policy, economics, etc, is essential.
Articulation: I know people think this isn’t important, but the ability to speak well and clearly ought to be a priority for the leader of the free world.
Ideas: It’s easy to criticize the president. It’s easy to be against whatever the opposing party is doing. Let’s hear some ideas. Real ideas, not pie in the sky nonsense like eliminating the IRS or closing our borders or cutting off all foreign aid.
Panderlessness: I’m an unashamed Christian, but once you start throwing the word “Jesus” around as part of your campaign, you only make me write you off as just another sleazy politician. I don’t want to hear about it. I honestly don’t. You can say all the right words. I won’t believe you. If you regularly attend a Christian church, we will already know about it. If you say your faith is important to you, fine. Don’t tell us that God told you to run. Don’t tell us that God is on your side. I won’t believe you.
Integrity: I want the candidate to want to be president and to admit that. But if becoming president is the highest good that the candidate can envision, then they are the wrong person. I want there to be some things that the candidate just will not sacrifice to gain the office. This one, I fear, is the least likely to be present in any candidate.
Now, do any of the host of contenders have any or all of these qualities?
Well said, Bill Mac. I would revise “intelligence” to include “be smart enough (1) not to make a fool of him/herself with stupid statements supposedly of fact that can be checked and (2) be smart enough to know when to hire experts in a given field.
John