Handicapping the 2012 GOP presidential nomination

[Really Not All That Bright]

His "$50 billion" Iraq blunder won't help either.

[RTFirefly]

The budget director can make recommendations, but ultimately Congress decides and the President signs. You can't blame Bush's deficits on Daniels without more data about what Daniels actually advised the president to do. Daniels was one of the three people Bush explicitly credited with making the 2001 tax cut possible. There's only so far he can run from that.

But the reason he has fiscal conservative bona fides is because of what he did in Indiana - he came into power facing a 600 million dollar deficit, and turned it into a $300 million surplus - in one year. He did it by cutting spending AND by raising taxes. And by the sale of state assets. Can't forget that.

He gets high marks from both libertarians like Nick Gillespie, and from centrist Republicans like David Brooks. Under a different nom de Web, here's (http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2011/04/why-nobody-should-ever-ever-read-david-brooks.html) the importance I placed on Brooks' analysis. George Will also speaks highly of himIf the world's most prominent climate change denier is for you, then who in the GOP can be against you? :rolleyes:

At any rate, these guys only help you win those Republicans who are influenced by inside-the-Beltway 'wisdom'. That's a diminishing set.

Seriously, like Pawlenty, he's got a problem getting non-insiders in early states to pay attention to him. Every Presidential cycle, it seems there are a number of politicians who the Broderists are in love with as Presidential possibilities, but the voters remain relentlessly uninterested in. Both Pawlenty and Daniels have to win over some actual voters.

He's also picked a fight with Rush Limbaugh. Call me back when a Republican wins such a fight.

[Sateryn76]

Little-known fact: Daniels is an Arab-American (his paternal grandparents immigrated from Syria).

He's also smart, short, was busted with a lot of pot and some hallucinogens, and doesn't want to fight about social issues. Odds of winning the GOP primary: 0%.

I'm planning on volunteering for his campaign. I think he's exactly what we need right now. Indiana is doing very well because of him.

[Simplicio]

I'm planning on volunteering for his campaign.
Might want to wait until Daniel's decides if he volunteering for his campaign. :)

[Simplicio]

Little-known fact: Daniels is an Arab-American (his paternal grandparents immigrated from Syria).

He's also smart, short, was busted with a lot of pot and some hallucinogens, and doesn't want to fight about social issues. Odds of winning the GOP primary: 0%.

Meh, I don't think the Arabic thing or drugs will hurt him. The GOP was alright with Bush's not admitted but generally acknowledged drug use. And while the GOP has a gross anti-Muslim streak going, I don't think it extends to Christian Arabs (it probably helps that his name is "Mitch" instead of "Abdullah" as well).

But I do think the Bush budget legacy will hurt him if he decides to run. The country is still pretty pissed at Bush, and the GOP has spent the last couple years trying to rebrand themselves as a different party then the one that ran the gov't '01-'09

[Onomatopoeia]

...and the GOP has spent the last couple years trying to rebrand themselves as a different party then the one that ran the gov't '01-'09They have? Coulda fooled me.

[RTFirefly]

They have? Coulda fooled me.No, no - the key word was 'rebrand.' Doesn't mean they're any different, just means they're trying to divest themselves, in the minds of the public, of any connection with the GOP of the Bush years. They really have been trying to do that - and largely succeeding: the MSM basically told the Dems in 2009 that continuing to bring up the sins of the Bushies would be shrill, uncivil, ungentlemanly, etc., and the Dems let themselves be buffaloed on this, so there's no pushback to this effort on the GOP's part.

[Really Not All That Bright]

He's also picked a fight with Rush Limbaugh. Call me back when a Republican wins such a fight.
I'd settle for "doesn't come crawling back to apologize".

[Gray Ghost]

The budget director can make recommendations, but ultimately Congress decides and the President signs. You can't blame Bush's deficits on Daniels without more data about what Daniels actually advised the president to do. Read David Stockman's book about his years as budget director for Reagan to see how frustrating and impotent that job can be.

But the reason he has fiscal conservative bona fides is because of what he did in Indiana - he came into power facing a 600 million dollar deficit, and turned it into a $300 million surplus - in one year. He did it by cutting spending AND by raising taxes. He has maintained fiscal discipline in Indiana since 2004, and was re-elected in 2008 with 57% of the vote. Not bad for a cost-cutting Republican in a blue state.

..He's well-liked by the traditional conservatives at National Review. So he's got broad appeal within the Republican party.

...He's probably the best candidate the Republicans could put forward.

Not to mention the guy's actually done something besides be in politics his entire adult life. (10 years in management with Eli Lilly) I wouldn't compare him too much to Stockman though, as Stockman, after "getting taken to the woodshed", did get himself fired for his convictions (which were very sound and pragmatic, IMHO. You may find his ideas on the current economic situation (http://www.youtube.com/v/Lq9NwyQSzhk) interesting. (42 minute youtube interview with him. Text of interviews with The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-04-07/reagan-budget-guru-david-stockman-says-shut-down-the-government) and Mother Jones (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/reagan-anniversary-david-stockman)).

In contrast to Stockman's principled stance, didn't Daniels just go along with what W and the rest of the Cabinet wanted? I've mentioned Daniels before (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12864381&postcount=16) but I do wonder whether he has the charisma to get the nomination. Perhaps it's just that his management style isn't as pugnacious as Christie (former United States Attorney)? I don't care, so long as he's able to help get the country's finances in order.

Gary Johnson is running now. It will be interesting to watch the libertarian wing (whatever remains of it) of the GOP try to figure out whether to support Johnson or Paul. The Joker in me would love to see a Secretary of the Treasury Ron Paul.

[Simplicio]

Not to mention the guy's actually done something besides be in politics his entire adult life. (10 years in management with Eli Lilly) I wouldn't compare him too much to Stockman though, as Stockman, after "getting taken to the woodshed", did get himself fired for his convictions


In addition to the example of Stockman, Paul O'Neill was in the Bush White House at the same time as Daniels and managed to get himself booted over disagreements with Bush. Daniels seemed to have had less of a problem water-carrying for disastrous policies then O'Neill did, in anycase.

So while its nice that after helping to rip a several hundred billion dollar hole in the US's budget, he managed to find a couple hundred million to put Indiana in the black, I think its a pretty big stretch to call him a deficit hawk. For anyone not lucky enough to live in the great state of Indiana, his actions have done far more harm then good.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Does Daniels have the "fire" for the run? He doesn't seem all that psyched about it. His family is said to be opposed tot he idea. In many ways he looks like Pawlenty II. Midwestern governor, seen as less radical than many Republicans. Pawlenty however, has assembled a crack campaign team, Daniels has not. Pawlenty has been on the ground in IA and NH for months building networks, Daniels has not. Pawlenty looks young and athletic while Daniels is 5'7" and half bald. Pawlenty can woo the Christian conservatives as well as the country clubbers. Daniels, not so much.

[Gray Ghost]

In addition to the example of Stockman, Paul O'Neill was in the Bush White House at the same time as Daniels and managed to get himself booted over disagreements with Bush. Daniels seemed to have had less of a problem water-carrying for disastrous policies then O'Neill did, in anycase.

So while its nice that after helping to rip a several hundred billion dollar hole in the US's budget, he managed to find a couple hundred million to put Indiana in the black, I think its a pretty big stretch to call him a deficit hawk. For anyone not lucky enough to live in the great state of Indiana, his actions have done far more harm then good.

I disagree with you that a large share of the blame for the abysmal job W did with government spending should be laid on Daniels. W and Congress were going to enact their policies regardless of what Daniels or OMB had to say. The principled thing then would be to resign, and I do fault him for not resigning when the cuts in his 2.13 trillion dollar budget were largely ignored by Congress. (And signed by W). OTOH, he was gone in June 2003, so even if he was an eager participant in their gargantuan spending, I don't know how much you can blame him for a lot of the more egregious programs such as the Part D subsidy (introduced in Congress, June 2003), the laughable estimates for costs in Iraq, etc...

He did publicly disagree with Lawrence Lindsey's 100-200 billion dollar cost estimates for the Iraq War, and I don't know what role he played in Lindsey's firing soon after. OTOH, Daniels's estimates of 50-60 billion were only for the first year, and came in at about that number. (51 billion, per wiki). I don't know what his listed contingencies were in his forecasting. If the thought was that OIF was going to be a punitive expedition/find and kill the Baathists and then go home, then the estimate makes a little more sense, and isn't the grotesque joke it is today. But it really depends on how much you believe the quoted statement from wiki: The operation was estimated to last six months, and did not include a projection of the long-term cost of maintaining a military presence in the region after its immediate occupation. I am suspicious that the quote is a load of ass-covering, self-serving garbage. Still, I would not use his experience as OMB director to say that the guy would be totally uncommitted to cutting spending were he elected to the Presidency.

[Simplicio]

Pawlenty however, has assembled a crack campaign team, Daniels has not. Pawlenty has been on the ground in IA and NH for months building networks.

Its sort of an interesting question how late in the game someone can start a primary campaign and still hope to win. Obviously some people have a lot of already established name recognition, political connections and fundraising infrastructure and so can show up at the last minute and still make up for lost time. Sarah Palin for example, why I don't think she'll run, could probably still wait another month or two and then still be able to make up for lost time due to her popularity amongst the GOP faithful.

But for the Daniels and Pawlenty's and Huckabees of the world, though, I think we're getting pretty close to the "put up or shut up" time. Pawlenty has already started to raise money, lock down supporters and campaign workers and get his name out there as the "not Mitt Romney choice for President" in places like Iowa and North Carolina. If Daniels and Huckabee want to run, I think they need to do so in the next few weeks before they've been out-paced by Pawlenty.

[Simplicio]

I disagree with you that a large share of the blame for the abysmal job W did with government spending should be laid on Daniels. W and Congress were going to enact their policies regardless of what Daniels or OMB had to say.

Certainly W and Congress are ultimately responsible, and W was certainly going to pass some large tax-cuts regardless of what others told him. Still, I think that if enough of his advisers started yelling at him that the cuts he proposed were nuts, he would've dialed them back. Obviously O'Neills oposition wasn't enough, but Daniels + O'Neill might've been.

After all, I seriously doubt that W sat down with an excel sheet and worked out the size of the tax-cuts himself. Presumably economic advisers like Daniels (or at least the people under him) did that. Had he come up with smaller numbers as those that were the largest tax-cuts that were economically sustainable, then the harm to the country may have been mitigated.

[RTFirefly]

Pawlenty however, has assembled a crack campaign team, Daniels has not. Pawlenty has been on the ground in IA and NH for months building networksDone him a hell of a lot of good so far (http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/ia/), it has.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

With all of T-Paw's prep work, he still can't seem to draw any real interest from Republican voters and has consistently been upstaged even in his own state by Michele Bachmann. He actually is not well-liked in Minnesota, left the state with a giagantic budget deficit (which he tried to paper over with Obama stimulus money) and has little or nothing in the way of charisma or personality. He is mean and hateful enough to not be objectionable to GOP Primary voters, but I don't see him as having any crossover appeal to centrists. Fiscally, he was incompetent as hell in Minnesota, so it will be hard for him to run on that (though you can count on him to say he balanced Minnesoata's budget without raising taxes - both huge lies).

[jsgoddess]

Rumor has it that Huckabee has decided not to run (http://processstory.com/2011/04/27/huckabee-won%E2%80%99t-run/). If true, I don't think this is a shocker for anyone.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Bachmann opened her mouth today. That never goes well. "I tell you this story because I think in our day and time, there is no analogy to that horrific action," she said, referring to the Holocaust. "But only to say, we are seeing eclipsed in front of our eyes a similar death and a similar taking away. It is this disenfranchisement that I think we have to answer to."

She's comparing taxes to the Holocaust.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Does she have any idea what "eclipsed" means?

[Gagundathar]

Does she have any idea what "eclipsed" means?

Apparently not.
Her statement was contrary to her apparent thesis.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Does she know what "disenfranchisement" means?

[Simplicio]

Does she know what "disenfranchisement" means?

Apparently, its what Hitler did to the Jews during the Holocaust. Which is technically correct, I guess.

[Crane]

Bachmann is seeking the votes of the ignorant, and she is gaining them. She upstages T-Paw at every turn and he has no defense against her.

BS wins and Bachmann's got it.

Palin is sitting back and watching the field self destruct.

Crane

[Chronos]

Palin is sitting back and watching the field self destruct. So is everyone else. What's special about Palin that way?

[Crane]

Ummm....everyone? How about the folks who showed up for the debate?

What's special about Palin is that she would inject some interest into the Republican primary.

Crane

[Kolak of Twilo]

So John McCain is in Iraq today. Recently he was in Libya. This is purely idle speculation but is it possible the weakness of the Republican field has him considering another run for the White House? I realize he will be 75 in August but all this globetrotting and keeping his name in the media has made me wonder what he may be thinking.

Probably not but still.......

[Simplicio]

McCain's big on taking trips to visit overseas military operations. I wouldn't read too much into it. He's too old and got his butt-kicked too last time around to have any illusions of running again.

Plus if he ran, every Dem ad would include the clip of him calling Obama naive for saying he'd go after Osama if he found out he was in Pakistan.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Well we now know how Romney will deal with the health care issue. It's right for MA, but wrong for America. And he defended the individual mandate to boot.

This stance will be a tough one to sell in his party.

[RTFirefly]

The Huckster's out, as noted in another thread in this forum.

The big question is, which candidate picks up the support of all those people, especially in Iowa, who wanted the Huckster as the nominee? I'd say the Bachmann/Palin Overdrive has a pretty good shot, and if T-Paw is going to win over anyone, he's got to start there.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

I say T-Paw and Bachmann split it. Eventually. They have the strongest Christian credentials and that was Huck's entire appeal.

[Simplicio]

And in the least surprising development of 2011, Trump is apparently officially out (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/abc-news-trump-not-running-for-president.php?ref=fpblg).

[Jas09]

Booooo.... I was really looking forward to him in a GOP primary debate. Oh well, at least he got some attention, so it was worth looking the fool, right?

[RTFirefly]

So who's still on the bubble? Among the potentially major players, I guess we're down to Palin and Mitch. My guess is that Mitch will run, and Palin won't.

[Rhythmdvl]

So who's still on the bubble? Among the potentially major players, I guess we're down to Palin and Mitch. My guess is that Mitch will run, and Palin won't.

Revisiting the OP's wiki link, the list is now:
Names of formally declared candidates appear in bold. Herman Cain, former Federal Reserve banker and businessman from Georgia
John Davis, businessman and construction worker from Colorado
Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives from Georgia
Gary E. Johnson former governor of New Mexico
Fred Karger, political consultant and gay rights activist from California
Andy Martin, perennial candidate from Illinois
Jimmy McMillan, perennial candidate from New York
Roy Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas
Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota
Buddy Roemer, former governor of Louisiana
Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts
Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania
Jonathon Sharkey, perennial candidate, wrestler and vampire from Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republican_Party)
ETA: The page also lists speculative candidates a bit lower:
None of the following has formally announced his or her candidacy for the Republican Party nomination. The following individuals are currently speculated about as possible candidates: Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton of Maryland
Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York
Former U.S. Ambassador to China and former Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. of Utah
Representative Thad McCotter of Michigan
Former Governor and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin of Alaska

[appleciders]

Not bad for a cost-cutting Republican in a blue state.

Indiana as a blue state? Really? It went for Obama in 2008 (only just, by a mere 30,000 votes), and before that to the Republican candidate in every presidential election after 1964. It is frequently cited as the single state that Obama won in 2008 that he is least likely to win in 2012. (It's either that or NC in most estimations.) Right now both Senators and 6 of 9 Representatives are Republicans. Both houses of the state legislature are solidly Republican-controlled. I grant that it's changing, and I wouldn't balk at "battleground state", but it's definitely not a blue state.

[RTFirefly]

Indiana as a blue state? Really? It went for Obama in 2008 (only just, by a mere 30,000 votes), and before that to the Republican candidate in every presidential election after 1964. It is frequently cited as the single state that Obama won in 2008 that he is least likely to win in 2012. (It's either that or NC in most estimations.) Right now both Senators and 6 of 9 Representatives are Republicans. Both houses of the state legislature are solidly Republican-controlled. I grant that it's changing, and I wouldn't balk at "battleground state", but it's definitely not a blue state.Remember the Crayola crayons would include colors like red-violet and blue-violet in addition to straight purple? From a Dem perspective, Indiana's red-violet at best.

[Cyberhwk]

Tweet from Nate Silver:
Keep an eye on this / RT @pwire: Sensing a vacuum in the GOP field, Texas Gov. Rick Perry quietly feels out a presidential campaign
Is it hyperbolic to suggest that if Rick Perry ran for the GOP nomination he might be the favorite? He'd crush in the South.

[Gray Ghost]

Dear God, I hope not, Cyberhwk. And I live in Texas. (and would probably be considered more to the right than many of the Dope.) Haven't we had enough blowhard Texans in the White House for a generation?
Primary season's sure going to be interesting, that's for sure.

[smithsb]

Same record as Pawlenty from MN. He papered over a huge budget deficit last year (Texas is on a two year cycle and LAST year was election year). This year, it came home to roost. Perry made a big deal about California's problems and touted Texas as a state to move you business to. Talked about job growth. This year, the deficit dwarfed California on a per capita basis. The big jobs he talked about were low paying in the service sector. Just smoke/mirrors in the finest Texas political tradition.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Watching the Gingrich campaign crater as soon as it cut the umbilical cord. He's being trashed by right wingers from coast to coast. Here's coverage from an appearance in Minneapolis today (Watching the Gingrich campaign crater as soon as it cut the umbilical cord. He's being trashed by right wingers from coast to coast. Here's coverage from an appearance in Minneapolis today. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/122066064.html).

The Republican party has moved so far to the right that even Newt "Contract for America" Gingrich seems to be befuddled by it.

[Frank]

Watching the Gingrich campaign crater as soon as it cut the umbilical cord. He's being trashed by right wingers from coast to coast. Here's coverage from an appearance in Minneapolis today (Watching the Gingrich campaign crater as soon as it cut the umbilical cord. He's being trashed by right wingers from coast to coast. Here's coverage from an appearance in Minneapolis today. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/122066064.html).

The Republican party has moved so far to the right that even Newt "Contract for America" Gingrich seems to be befuddled by it.
That's what he gets for disagreeing with some podunk Congressman from Wisconsin who doesn't even have enough oomph to run for the open Senate seat there. The only availability for valid political differences amongst Republicans these days appears to be as to whether Democrats are Socialists or Communists.

[Onomatopoeia]

I don't know. I wouldn't count Newt "family values" Gingrich out until he cries uncle.

[Steve MB]

I don't know. I wouldn't count Newt "family values" Gingrich out until he cries uncle.

His dropping a quarter-to-half million at Tiffany's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/newt-gingrich-tiffanys-conservative/2011/03/04/AFarVx5G_blog.html) makes me wonder if he's in the doghouse for auditioning Wife #4....

[Sam Stone]

The only person who thinks Newt Gingrich has a shot at the nomination is Newt Gingrich. He is not appealing to anyone in the Republican party. His serial divorces worry the social conservatives, his social conservatism worries the libertarians, and he's currently incoherent on fiscal policy.

[RTFirefly]

The only person who thinks Newt Gingrich has a shot at the nomination is Newt Gingrich. And a half-dozen or so Dopers in the 'Does Newt have a snowball's chance? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=607831)' thread.

[Sam Stone]

I just skimmed that thread. I saw one person who's obviously not a Republican saying that he can win basically because Republicans are stupid. Doesn't count. I saw a couple of other people half-heartedly put up a defense of his having a slightly better chance than Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. I didn't see anyone in that thread who was of the serious opinion that Newt was going to be the nominee.

In fact, I think that thread contained the most agreement across the political spectrum as any thread I can remember in a long time. Newt's a dickhead (literally - his dick does his thinking for him), and he has a knack for saying exactly the wrong things to his own potential constituents.

Romney's speech last week went over like a lead balloon with Republicans. The boys over on National Review considered it a 'disaster' - too clever by half, and it made him look even more like a glib blow-dried suit, which was already his weak spot. So I think he's moved from 'possible' to 'longshot'. Newt has moved from 'longshot' to "Are you KIDDING me?"

It's fun to watch the whole thing play out. In the end, I suspect one of the safe governors will be the guy. Daniels, Pawlenty, Christie if he runs, or maybe Rick Perry. The longshot would be Gary Johnson.

Right now, the polls of Republican voters are dominated by the candidates with the most name recognition. Once the average Republican starts to really pay attention, I suspect we'll see the list change, and maybe some late entrants join the field.

Republicans have a history of flirting with the exciting candidates that rile up the base, but they ultimately wind up picking bland, safe choices. In 1988 and 1992 they stuck with George HW Bush. Then Bob Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain. George W. Bush was the closest they ever got to nominating a 'movement' conservative, but even he campaigned basically as a slightly more right-wing version of his dad. Compassionate conservatism, a quiet foreign policy, etc. Bland and inoffensive.

Based on that tendency, I'd say Romney had the best chance until last week, but still has to be considered a contender. Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels are probably closest to the role of traditional Republican nominee.

[RTFirefly]

I didn't see anyone in that thread who was of the serious opinion that Newt was going to be the nominee. So freakin' what? You said "The only person who thinks Newt Gingrich has a shot at the nomination is Newt Gingrich." I can find you a half-dozen people in that thread who said they thought he did.

Maybe you can do a Newt, and say that anyone who quotes what you said in your earlier post is committing a falsehood.

[Chronos]

Watching the Gingrich campaign crater as soon as it cut the umbilical cord. He's being trashed by right wingers from coast to coast. Here's coverage from an appearance in Minneapolis today. Lance, you seem to have forgotten to include the link.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Well, I don't know what happened to that. In a nutshell, Newt was bombarded by right-wing skeptics. He was grilled over his assertion that evolution and faith are not mutually exclusive.

[Gray Ghost]

For the reasons you all have stated, I think Gingrich has slightly more chance of winning the nomination than I do. My question here is, in a field this weak, why the hell isn't Bobby Jindal running? Yes, yes, he wants to concentrate on his 2011 Gov campaign. He keeps saying he's not interested, I get it. And he doesn't want to lose and thereby screw up his chances in 2016. That said, he's going to have a much tougher time in 2016, with Christie, Rubio, maybe Rand Paul, all going to run. Why not take a shot at it now?

[Profound Gibberish]

Think about the last time an inexperienced governor was elected President.

How did that work out?

[Gray Ghost]

Think about the last time an inexperienced governor was elected President.

How did that work out?

Better than the performance of the inexperienced Senator so far. But, with our opinions on the last two Presidents having now been stated, this is really a discussion for another thread. Though I do hate having to defend that miserable legacy idiot W.

I don't share Jindal's views---his aggressive pro-life stance and poor civil liberties voting record are anathema to me; I'm just finding it strange that he isn't running, given the very weak, boring field so far.

[RTFirefly]

My question here is, in a field this weak, why the hell isn't Bobby Jindal running? Not much of a record, perhaps?

It's always possible that someone like Jindal is worried that if the national media turns him into a national laughingstock because there really isn't much 'there' there, it might hurt his chances to regain the governorship or win a Senate seat back in Louisiana after he loses.

[RTFirefly]

Better than the performance of the inexperienced Senator so far. For extremely weird values of 'better,' I assume. :)

But you're right - figuring out your yardstick for comparison is best left to a more appropriate thread.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Jindal fell on his face in his national coming out party delivering a Republican response to the Pres. He might be a VP pick, but I doubt even that. His odd and easily mockable manner of speaking leaves him with a lot of potential to be a punching bag for late night comedians.

[Simplicio]

Jindal fell on his face in his national coming out party delivering a Republican response to the Pres. He might be a VP pick, but I doubt even that. His odd and easily mockable manner of speaking leaves him with a lot of potential to be a punching bag for late night comedians.

Meh, it was one speech, and its not like he wet himself or anything. He certainly didn't do himself any favors in his SOTU response, but its hardly bad enough to keep him from running for Prez if he wanted to.

[smithsb]

He died that night (speech). His appeal outside of republican loyalists is about zero - they are going to win those votes anyway. Haley Barbour was a better choice due to more national presence and he wouldn't win outside the same narrow demographic.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Plus, Barbour wouldn't confuse racist voters.

[Onomatopoeia]

Plus, Barbour wouldn't confuse racist voters.You said that better than I was about to.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Contested candidacies are won by the people with the most money to spend who can also field the best organized and most comprehensive field staff. I don't believe it has all that much to do with positions, or previous votes, or experience, or all the things that are much more fun to talk about. (Though a serious enough gaffe can remove you. and that's always fun.) Clinton won the nomination that way and so did Obama. McCain won that way and so did Bush.

I can't figure out who this person is among the Republican field this year, mostly because nobody ever talks about it. I'd guess that Romney and Gingrich have the advantage as far as money and connections in the state parties. If that's the case, then next year's primaries will start out with a bunch of values candidates who will eliminate one another and Romney and Gingrich will flail it out to the end.

Does anybody have some insight into this? Who is putting together good ground forces beside them? Who can line up the huge Republican donors? I read that a group of Iowans went to Chris Christie to get him to run and he seems to be a firm no. If they can't get him, who will they turn to? If the answer is either Romney or Gingrich then it's already all over.

[Lantern]

My take on the race right now is that it's Romney versus Pawlenty. Romney has the advantage in terms of money and establishment connections. He has more experience and gravitas and is therefore more electable. Many GOP primary voters will pick the man who they think can beat Obama even if they don't like him much just like Democrats picked Kerry in 2004. Romney's big problem is his health care plan which angers a large part of the conservative base. His Mormonism is also an issue with the RR.

Pawlenty has more space to work with; he could potentially appeal to the RR and Tea Party while still retaining some appeal with establishment/moderate types. His problem has been a lot of potential competition in that larger space including Huckabee, Palin, Bachmann and Gingrich. Now Huckabee is out and perhaps Palin won't run either. He still has to worry about Bachmann and Gingrich if either or both of them run and do well they could potentially divide the conservative base which would only help Romney.

Romney has fewer competitors to worry about in his space;mainly Daniels who may not run. I don't think Gingrich is a threat to Romney despite his leadership background. The establishment will pick someone who they think can win.Gingrich is too much of a loose cannon with high negatives and is close to being unelectable.

[RTFirefly]

Romney...has more experience and gravitas and is therefore more electable. Romney's one four-year term as Massachusetts governor is the sum total of his experience in public office.

Pawlenty's been governor of Minnesota for two four-year terms, and served five terms in the Minnesota House of Representatives before that. He was Majority Leader of that body for his last four years there.

Sum total: Pawlenty's way more experienced than Romney. People may perceive Romney as more experienced, though, because he's been in the public eye nationally since his run for the 2008 GOP nomination.

[Lantern]

Romney's one four-year term as Massachusetts governor is the sum total of his experience in public office.

Pawlenty's been governor of Minnesota for two four-year terms, and served five terms in the Minnesota House of Representatives before that. He was Majority Leader of that body for his last four years there.

Sum total: Pawlenty's way more experienced than Romney. People may perceive Romney as more experienced, though, because he's been in the public eye nationally since his run for the 2008 GOP nomination.

Romney has a ton of high-level private sector experience as well and he also ran the 2002 Winter Olympics. And while Pawlenty may have been governor for longer, Massachusetts is a more important state and Romney's health care plan, though it hurts him in the primary, gives him a national stature on a hugely important policy issue. So yes Pawlenty has more government experience but I don't think he matches Romney when it comes to presidential gravitas.

Incidentally I think the Osama killing helps Romney a bit. It has increased Obama's stature and Republicans will be aware that they need a candidate who can match that. I think Romney does that better than anyone else.

[RTFirefly]

Romney has a ton of high-level private sector experience as well and he also ran the 2002 Winter Olympics. Private sector success doesn't seem to translate well into votes.

And while Pawlenty may have been governor for longer, Massachusetts is a more important stateHow do you figure that? It's got a few more Congresscritters, but it isn't that much more populous.and Romney's health care plan, though it hurts him in the primary, gives him a national stature on a hugely important policy issue. So yes Pawlenty has more government experience but I don't think he matches Romney when it comes to presidential gravitas. It's hard to regard either of them as having 'gravitas.' Romney looks the part, but he's reinvented himself more times in fewer years than any politician around, though all of a sudden he's got competition from Newt.

I remember asking the same question about Romney back in 2007: do Americans really want to put a guy in the White House whose purported core convictions have changed in just the past few years? How do you know what he'll stand for after he's been elected?

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

T-Paw will announce he is running for President in Monday, only 5 years after he actually started running. I guess he isn't putting any faith in the May 21 rapture event.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I wonder what Bachmann will do to upstage him again.

[Profound Gibberish]

I wonder what Bachmann will do to upstage him again.

You mean other than blather out a factually incorrect, incoherent statement?

[Rhythmdvl]

You mean other than blather out a factually incorrect, incoherent statement?

Yeah but what will she do different to upstage Pawlenty?

[Kolak of Twilo]

And the herd just keeps getting thinner - Mitch Daniels is out. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/daniels-decides-against-republican-presidential-bid/?hp)

According to the article in the New York Times linked above:
“In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one,” Mr. Daniels wrote. “The interests and wishes of my family, is the most important consideration of all. If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry.”


It's beginning to really look more and more like this is Romney's nomination to lose.

[Lantern]

Private sector success doesn't seem to translate well into votes.
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't but it does generally contribute to someone being seen as a heavyweight which is what we are talking about. Romney's private sector achievements were outstanding and he can claim that they have given him an insight into how the US economy works. This argument will be especially be persuasive to the corporate wing which IMO still calls the shots in the GOP.

As for MA versus MN, again it is a matter of perception. MA simply receives greater attention on the national stage whether because of its history or its status as an education and technology powerhouse.

Romney will not necessarily make a good President. I think he will lose to Obama. However he does come across as presidential in a way that almost no one else in the field does and I think that will help him win the nomination.

Daniel's dropping out is great news for him and it pretty much sews up the establishment/moderate section of the party. OTOH Gingrinch's implosion is somewhat bad news because I suspect he would have attracted Pawlenty's voters more than Romney's . Overall though, I bet Romney is pretty happy with his position right now. If Bachmann enters the race and siphons off some of the Tea Party/RR voters away from Pawlenty he will be in a great position.

[Rhythmdvl]

However he does come across as presidential in a way that almost no one else in the field does and I think that will help him win the nomination.
I wonder how that will pan out in the primaries. IIRC, Bush cultivated a very different demeanor than the Hollywood presidential archetype. Not wholly divergent, but there are videos comparing his speaking style in Texas and on the national campaign trail/presidency. Much more folksy, much more comrade-like (I don't mean that in the Soviet sense), much more accessible. It's a style that seems to come naturally to Palin and Bachmann.

[Simplicio]

And the herd just keeps getting thinner - Mitch Daniels is out. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/daniels-decides-against-republican-presidential-bid/?hp)

According to the article in the New York Times linked above:


It's beginning to really look more and more like this is Romney's nomination to lose.

I guess he doesn't really care how much attention the announcement gets, since he's not running. But still, 1:30am on a Sunday? Thats usually when you announce your Chief of Staff was caught running a cock-fighting ring or something.

[Onomatopoeia]

Has Romney even announced yet? If so, I must have missed it. If not, what happens if he doesn't?

If I were Romney, I'd consider waiting until 2016 when, perhaps, the Tea Party's power has waned. Let one of the loonies go against Obama now and lose. The party will be more amenable to voting for a moderate by next election.

[RTFirefly]

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't Please give instances where it has. Other than Ross Perot, I'm drawing a blank.

but it does generally contribute to someone being seen as a heavyweight which is what we are talking about.Well what I was talking about was your claim that "Romney...has more experience and gravitas and is therefore more electable." (Actually, I was originally pointing out that Pawlenty has a lot more experience than Romney.) That requires votes.

Romney's private sector achievements were outstanding and he can claim that they have given him an insight into how the US economy works. This argument will be especially be persuasive to the corporate wing which IMO still calls the shots in the GOP.Now this is just crazy talk. The money wing of the party has already taken this into account, and is still on the fence. (Remember at this point in 1999, they were all-in with George W. Bush.) They're looking for something else - a combination of nominatability (if that's a word, or even if it isn't), electability and fealty, I expect.

Note that the money wing of the GOP was firmly behind business failure and general dim bulb GWB coming out the gate in 1999, and was gettinig behind the truly dumb-as-a-post George Allen for President in 2008 until he committed macacacide in the fall of 2006.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Daniels getting out is a big boost to Pawlenty. Daniels is a former governor of a medium sized, midwestern state who has positioned himself as a fiscal conservative. He would have been fighting with Pawlenty over many of the same voters.

Now we will wait to see what Rick Perry does as he seems to be the last wild card left in the deck. If he fails to jump in we have Bachmann, T-Paw and Romney as the big 3 candidates. And Bachmann would really have no chance of winning the nomination although she could make some waves in Iowa.

[Bijou Drains]

Weird thing about Bachmann is her official website mentions nothing about her law degrees. I guess being a lawyer does not play well with her fans.

[Richard Parker]

She was an IRS lawyer!

[Chronos]

Has Romney even announced yet? If so, I must have missed it. If not, what happens if he doesn't? What if they had a primary and nobody came?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Weird thing about Bachmann is her official website mentions nothing about her law degrees. I guess being a lawyer does not play well with her fans.
She was an IRS lawyer!
The legitimacy of her law degrees is also somewhat murky. From page 6 of this thread:
I'm beginning to think that there's a real possibility that Michelle Bachmann will get an early endorsement...

... from what I'm hearing, she's more like "Palin with brains and an education". At least, that's the way she comes across to people who speak with her off-camera.
What brains? What education? She has a fake law degree from Oral Roberts University.
Aside from her law degree from Oral Roberts, she has an LL.M in tax law from William and Mary law school, which is a highly ranked law school in the U.S. (ranked #10 by U.S. News and World Report's law school ranking guide). She's not an idiot.

By the way, she does not have a 'fake' law degree. Oral Roberts is a reasonably well-regarded university with full accreditation. She would never have gotten into W&M if her law degree was 'fake'. She also spent five years as a practicing tax attorney, working for the commisioner of the IRS. Fake law degree indeed.

Oral Roberts has transcended the crazy Christian school thing and is, as Sam points out, a very good school. It's been one of the Princeton Review's top colleges in the Western region (http://www.oru.edu/news/oru_news/20100804_bestinthewest.php) 3 of the last 4 years.
That being said, the law school never progressed beyond provisional ABA accreditation (and had its provisional accreditation pulled for a while because it required students to declare that they would practice only Christ's law, or somesuch).

So it's not a fake law degree, but it's not a very good one either. Her LLM is much more impressive.
William and Mary doesn't offer an LL.M program (well it does, but only for foreign students)...

...For the record, her official bio on her Congressional sute (http://bachmann.house.gov/Biography/) lists only Anoka high school and Winona University.

The Law school at Oral Roberts was unaccredited at the time Bachmann went there.
It doesn't offer one now, but that doesn't mean it didn't offer one then. You'd have to find a copy of their 1988 catalogue to prove that.

...the J.D. Coburn School of Law was unaccredited from 1981 to 1983. It was provisionally accredited from 1983 to 1985, when it was shut down due to lack of funding, and its assets transferred to what is now Regent University...

What is interesting is that she supposedly graduated from Oral Roberts law in 1986. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/B001256)
She practiced tax law for the IRS. I'm assuming that means she got an LL.M from somewhere, and that her law degree was recognized. If not, then you'd think by now her opponents would have dug up the dirt on this and raked her over the coals on it, and she'd be facing disbarment and possible legal charges.

[BrainGlutton]

Interesting take from the new Pew Political Typology (http://people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/) (Thread here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=607706)):

Looking Ahead to 2012

In the 2012 presidential race, Barack Obama holds a 47%-to-37% lead over a generic Republican opponent among all registered voters, and preferences largely mirror Obama’s overall job approval ratings. A year-and-a-half ahead of Election Day, nearly every group either solidly backs or opposes Obama by substantial margins.

Solid Liberals are Obama’s strongest supporters: 95% say they would like to see the president reelected. Obama also enjoys overwhelming support from the other majority Democratic groups (78% among Hard-Pressed Democrats and 75% among New Coalition Democrats), and substantial support among the Democratic-leaning Post-Moderns (60% reelect Obama, 16% prefer a Republican).

Staunch Conservatives support a generic GOP candidate by about as wide a margin as Solid Liberals back Obama; 91% support a Republican candidate. Somewhat smaller majorities of Main Street Republicans (73%) and Republican-leaning Libertarians (70%) also prefer a Republican over Obama. The GOP-oriented Disaffecteds favor a GOP nominee over Obama by roughly two-to-one (48% vs. 22%).

In most cases, these early 2012 preferences mirror the way each of these groups voted in the Obama-McCain matchup in 2008. For example, Staunch Conservatives backed McCain over Obama by 87% to 1%, while Solid Liberals backed Obama over McCain by 87% to 2%. (For more on how typology groups voted in recent elections, see Section 1: The Political Typology.)

But there is one key independent voting bloc that has moved more firmly into the Republican camp since 2008: Libertarians. This group backed McCain over Obama by a 39-point margin in 2008 (53% to 14%), but prefer a generic Republican over Obama today by a 63-point margin (70% to 7%).

Evaluating the Possible GOP Field

In the race for the GOP nomination, several of the leading Republican contenders fare well across most –but not all – GOP groups. Mitt Romney’s weakest support is among Disaffecteds, while Libertarians are less likely than other groups to back Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. Newt Gingrich does his best among Staunch Conservatives but his support wavers within other groups; and support for Ron Paul is concentrated among Libertarians.

While Staunch Conservatives are the most firmly committed to voting Obama out of office, they have yet to agree on a preferred candidate: 22% say Huckabee would be their first choice, 20% Romney, 18% Gingrich, and 13% Palin. Palin and Gingrich garner less support among Main Street Republicans, 24% of whom name either Romney or Huckabee as their preferred nominee at this point.

To win in 2012, a Republican nominee will need to reach beyond these base groups and appeal to the Republican-leaning Libertarians and Disaffecteds as well. No GOP candidate at this point has broad appeal among both of these voting blocs. Romney leads among Libertarians (27% first choice), with Ron Paul also garnering significant support. By comparison, Disaffecteds prefer Palin or Huckabee over Romney and other potential Republican candidates.

[furt]

And the herd just keeps getting thinner - Mitch Daniels is out. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/daniels-decides-against-republican-presidential-bid/?hp)

It's beginning to really look more and more like this is Romney's nomination to lose.Indeed, and Obama's election. I give Romney very little chance to beat Obama; Daniels would have had an excellent shot.

Look for a lot of pressure on Paul Ryan to get into it.

[Jas09]

Look for a lot of pressure on Paul Ryan to get into it.Paul Ryan already passed up on the Senate seat opened up by Kohl's retirement. If he's not ready to run for Senate, what makes you think he's ready to run for President? I think lots of people underestimate the level of planning and groundwork required for a full-scale presidential run - look at Fred Thompson's campaign to see what a "drafted" candidate looks like.

Of the undeclared candidates only Romney (if you consider him undeclared) and Palin have any legitimate shot of winning, IMO. Maybe Perry, but I'm not sure he gets any play in IA or NH, and he doesn't seem to have any sort of national team in place (see the "drafted" comment above).

The last couple of weeks couldn't have been any better for Tim Pawlenty, as far as I can tell. I might go so far as to declare him the favorite, or perhaps co-favorite with Romney.

[RTFirefly]

Daniels getting out is a big boost to Pawlenty. Daniels is a former governor of a medium sized, midwestern state who has positioned himself as a fiscal conservative. He would have been fighting with Pawlenty over many of the same voters. Well, it's a big opportunity for Pawlenty. He's still got to convince people to actually, you know, vote for him, or even say in polls that they prefer him to the other candidates.

But yeah, the door's wide open for Pawlenty; all he's got to do is show he can walk through it.
Now we will wait to see what Rick Perry does as he seems to be the last wild card left in the deck. Speaking of guys with a wide-open door in front of them: if he has any aspiration to be President, he'll never have a better opportunity. I agree with Nate Silver that he could pretty much sweep to the nomination, given the quality of the field. And as long as the battle for the nomination didn't reveal serious concerns about him, he'd probably be a stronger opponent to Obama in 2012 than anyone currently in the game. And if the job situation hasn't improved much by 2012, the GOP nominee will have a tailwind.

If he fails to jump in we have Bachmann, T-Paw and Romney as the big 3 candidates. And Bachmann would really have no chance of winning the nomination although she could make some waves in Iowa.I'm thinking that the best analogy to Bachmann's potential role in this primary season is Gene McCarthy in 1968. Too far left to win the nomination, but still won a bunch of primaries.

Bachmann could do that from the right side. And in the process, she could KO Pawlenty, who needs Iowa or South Carolina, both of which Bachmann should run well in.

Daniels' decision not to run creates another problem for Romney: now that the field has shrunk considerably, he no longer has much excuse for doing a low-profile campaign in Iowa. He's unlikely to win there, but he needs to show up and play anyway.

[Tom Scud]

Now we will wait to see what Rick Perry does as he seems to be the last wild card left in the deck. If he fails to jump in we have Bachmann, T-Paw and Romney as the big 3 candidates.


Speaking of guys with a wide-open door in front of them: if he has any aspiration to be President, he'll never have a better opportunity.

From a couple Texas liberals, I've heard that the reason he isn't running is because there's another door he doesn't want wide open. (Or more bluntly, that he's a closeted gay guy.)

Pure Glenn Beck-level rumor, but there it is.

[furt]

Paul Ryan already passed up on the Senate seat opened up by Kohl's retirement. If he's not ready to run for Senate, what makes you think he's ready to run for President? 1) Because being President is just an eensy bit more influential than being Junior Senator from Wisconsin. If he lost his seniority in the house, it might well make the senate a step down for him.

2) I didn't say he will run; I said there will be people pressuring him to do it (media types, party leaders, etc.). I suspect he won't, and in the end the GOP will be stuck with a stiff like Pawlenty or Romney.

[Profound Gibberish]

Rick Perry would have a hard time running against a $25 Billion budget deficit that occurred during his administration from his own policies.

He also has zero personality which would not repsond well to normal (ie, non-Texan) voters.

I also hope that once people hear "Republican Governor from Texas" they will run for the shelters and realize what a losing proposition that has been in the past and will be in the future.

[Chronos]

And I don't think there's any doubt that Texas is going to go Republican, anyway, no matter who the party runs. Why run a Texan if you can run someone from a swingy state (or at least a swingy region of the country) and maybe pull it solidly into your column?

[Jas09]

1) Because being President is just an eensy bit more influential than being Junior Senator from Wisconsin. If he lost his seniority in the house, it might well make the senate a step down for him.

2) I didn't say he will run; I said there will be people pressuring him to do it (media types, party leaders, etc.). I suspect he won't, and in the end the GOP will be stuck with a stiff like Pawlenty or Romney.Gotcha.

I'm a bit curious why you consider him "not a stiff" when compared to Pawlenty and Romney. They all seem to have pretty much the same level of personality (Pawlenty perhaps a bit less, although Ryan was pretty damn flat in his SOTU response) and the same basic appearance (upper-middle-age white guys with TV hair).

[gonzomax]

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200210/11_khoom_pawlenty/ T- Paw is a dirty little politician who works for big money. he is a user of situation ethics. he makes them up as he goes along.
The midwest has some over the top right wingers in charge. He is like the others. I don't believe he ever got 50 percent of the vote. But once they are in charge they act like they have a mandate to make wholesale changes.

[furt]

Gotcha.

I'm a bit curious why you consider him "not a stiff" when compared to Pawlenty and Romney. They all seem to have pretty much the same level of personality (Pawlenty perhaps a bit less, although Ryan was pretty damn flat in his SOTU response) and the same basic appearance (upper-middle-age white guys with TV hair).No, he's not dynamic or exciting (though he's certainly younger and fresher than Romney), but none of the current GOP candidates are. But that's fine because the GOP trying to out-cool Obama would be a horrible mistake. Obama appeals to the idealist in people, and it'll be very hard to beat him at his own game. They need a credible realist.

Their best political approach in 2012 is to say that electing the idealist hasn't helped the economy, and the arrogant young guy instead has just driven our deficit through the roof because he spent a zillion dollars on giveaways chasing those starry ideals.

To sell that message, you need

1) a sober, responsible, humble guy with fiscal credibility, but
2) not so lethargic as to look like corpse when put next to Obama , and
3) not someone who fits into the easily-dismissed tropes of Republicans as rednecks, fundamentalists and/or Big Business.

Romney loses on all three (old, CEO guy who created a health plan just like Obama's in Massachusetts). Pawlenty is better, but he just seems dull and has too much whiff of fundamentalism to me.

Ryan to me projects the air of the accountant who's breaking the bad news to you. He's not trying to inspire you -- just the opposite -- and he's not on some messiah kick. Not saying he'd beat Obama, but someone like him is their best chance.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Ryan wants to throw people off of Medicare. That's his big idea. That's not "delivering bad news," it's just preserving the elite at the expense of the poor. The real "bad news" is that the rich are going to have to pay their fair share of taxes. That's what the GOP needs to admit. Ryan has no real concept of either fiscal or social responsibility. He's just a ruthless plutocrat. He has no populist appeal, and no basic human decency.

[Merijeek]

Let's see if I have this right. Ryan comes out with a plan so shit-poor and completely unpopular that every notable from his party runs from it as fast as they can.

And this is seen as a positive? This is the same reality-impaired horseshit that had everything in 2008 (including rain, sunsets, and teenage acne) as "good news for John McCain".

-Joe

[Sam Stone]

Ryan wants to throw people off of Medicare. That's his big idea. That's not "delivering bad news," it's just preserving the elite at the expense of the poor. The real "bad news" is that the rich are going to have to pay their fair share of taxes.

You know, you're going to have to hand in your 'reality based community' card until you get it through your head that the rich don't have that kind of money.

To bring Medicare into sustainability would require a payroll tax increase on everyone of about 3% today. That's every worker. Note that that's not the same as a marginal tax increase of 3% - that's a 3% tax on every dollar of income. If you're going to try to extract that funding from the top 5%, well, good luck.

Every year you wait, the amount of money that will have to be withheld for Medicare goes up. And this WILL fall on everyone - the rich simply don't have the money. Hell, if you taxed ALL the income of the top 5% today you couldn't even balance the current budget.

Medicare is projected to increase to about 7.5% of GDP by 2035, and to 9.8% of GDP by 2050. The total unfunded liability of Medicare today is about 36 trillion dollars if you extend it indefinitely into the future (i.e. if you wanted the program to be sustainable indefinitely at today's contribution rates, there should be an additional 36 trillion in the trust fund right now). These are huge numbers. Of course, you've also got 14 trillion in on-budget debt, and a deficit of over a trillion dollars per year. Are the rich going to pay that off for you too?

Continuing to believe that there's no problem so long as the 'rich' are just taxed more is the equivalent of believing that your problems will be solved with pixie dust and unicorns.

At this point, everyone except for the hard-core lefties and hard-core righties have come to the realization that they've been promised far more than can be delivered, and that the problem is serious and has to be fixed by a combination of deep cuts and tax increases. The left thinks everything can be fixed with tax increases on the rich, and the right thinks everything can be fixed with spending cuts that won't hurt the average person. The grownups in the middle aren't being listened to.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You know, you're going to have to hand in your 'reality based community' card until you get it through your head that the rich don't have that kind of money.
They don't have the "kind of money" to pay their fair share? What the fuck does that mean?

First of all, yes they do, and second of all, Throwing people off of Medicare is MORE expensive than sustaining it. It just means that people will be going to emergency rooms.

Medicare aside, no budget plan can be taken seriously that continues to give away free money to billionaires and corporations. A responsible, adult budget is going to have to restore reasonable taxes on the top economic brackets. That's the ONLY thing that's ever worked. You can't cut your way to prosperity. Even Reagan knew that.

[Chronos]

You know, you're going to have to hand in your 'reality based community' card until you get it through your head that the rich don't have that kind of money.But the poor do?

[Sam Stone]

The middle class does.

[Budget Player Cadet]

The middle class does.

Did. Past tense.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There is no middle class anymore. Reagan killed it.

[RTFirefly]

You know, you're going to have to hand in your 'reality based community' card until you get it through your head that the rich don't have that kind of money.

To bring Medicare into sustainability would require a payroll tax increase on everyone of about 3% today. That's every worker. Note that that's not the same as a marginal tax increase of 3% - that's a 3% tax on every dollar of income. If you're going to try to extract that funding from the top 5%, well, good luck. You keep doing this, Sam. Anytime someone suggests taxing the rich a bit more than at present, your bullshit answer seems to be a generic "the rich don't have that kind of money," apparently meaning you can't balance the entire U.S. budget by taxing the top 5%, no matter what claim the other guy made about the utility of taxing rich people.

Every year you wait, the amount of money that will have to be withheld for Medicare goes up. And this WILL fall on everyone - the rich simply don't have the money. Hell, if you taxed ALL the income of the top 5% today you couldn't even balance the current budget.
The left thinks everything can be fixed with tax increases on the richGot evidence that this belief is widespread among 'the left'?
The grownups in the middle aren't being listened to.What grownups? The clowns who said Ryan's plan to pay for tax cuts by gutting Medicare was responsible and bold and honest? Or the ones who just automatically write off any ideas coming from further left than Joe Lieberman, and keep on searching for responsible, brave GOP daddies.

Closest thing to a responsible centrist in this town is Obama.

[Sam Stone]

You keep doing this, Sam. Anytime someone suggests taxing the rich a bit more than at present, your bullshit answer seems to be a generic "the rich don't have that kind of money," apparently meaning you can't balance the entire U.S. budget by taxing the top 5%, no matter what claim the other guy made about the utility of taxing rich people.

Not at all what I said. In fact, not even close to what I said. I said that you can't fix medicare by raising taxes on the rich, because they don't have enough money. I specifically said that the problems the U.S. is facing will require a combination of raising taxes AND cutting spending.

The fact is, the rich simply don't have enough money to pay for the retirement shortfall of the entire freaking country. If you want to fix medicare and social security and the budget deficit with tax increases only, you are going to have to raise taxes on everyone. A VAT of maybe 15% would probably do it. Or maybe you can raise the taxes on the rich by 20%, and have a 12% VAT.

I get tired of these charades. Someone says that the Medicare spending is out of control, and someone else responds, "The problem is that the rich aren't paying their fair share". Now, if you don't actually believe that raising taxes on the rich will solve the U.S.'s fiscal problems, this kind of statement is simply a red herring.

You can believe that the rich aren't paying their 'fair share' and advocate tax hikes on them. Just don't fool yourself that it's going to make a huge difference.

It's like the Bush tax cuts - Lefties play this shell game all the time: "If we just rescind the Bush tax cuts, we can save 3 trillion dollars!". But a good chunk of those tax cuts went to the poor and middle class. Rescinding the Bush tax cuts on the 'rich' doesn't even get you to a trillion dollars in savings over a decade, at a time when the government is running trillion dollar deficits per year.

So you can argue that the tax cuts on the rich should be allowed to expire, and that's fine. Let's accept that as a given. Now tell me where the other 90% of the money needed is going to come from? And that's just to balance the budget. If you don't touch medicare for a decade while you take care of the main deficit, in ten years you're going to have to make draconian cuts to benefits, or raise so much in taxes that you can't hope to get it from the rich.

At what point does the middle class come into play with you? How bad do things have to get before you drop the mantra that it's all the rich's fault and everyone else should skate, or even be given money from the government as a 'stimulus'?


Every year you wait, the amount of money that will have to be withheld for Medicare goes up. And this WILL fall on everyone - the rich simply don't have the money. Hell, if you taxed ALL the income of the top 5% today you couldn't even balance the current budget.

Got evidence that this belief is widespread among 'the left'?

All the evidence right on this board. And right in this thread. Diogenes portrays the problem as 'the elite' putting the screws to the little guy, and that the problem is that the rich don't pay their fair share. That's the standard response I get from lefties when this topic comes up.

This totally misrepresents the scale and nature of the problem. Medicare and Social Security are primarily benefits for the poor and middle class, and are supposed to be paid for by the the people who will use it. But they've been under-paying into the system for a long time, leaving a giant gap in funding. That's not a problem of 'the rich', and the amount of money we're talking about is so huge that you can't just take it from 'the rich', because they don't have it.

But every time this discussion comes up, the lefties on this board can't seem to get off the 'rich people are bad and it's all their fault' mantra.

As for Ryan's plan - understand that he's not 'taking away' medicare. Medicare's going to take itself away by and by unless something is changed. Given the status quo or the Ryan plan, more poor and middle class people would get some kind of coverage from the Ryan plan, because the alternative today is bankruptcy of the system.

The Ryan plan isn't that radical - hell, it doesn't even balance the budget for something like 30 years, and it doesn't touch the benefits of anyone who will retire in the next ten years. But I haven't seen an alternative plan that makes any sense. Have you got one?

[RTFirefly]

Not at all what I said. In fact, not even close to what I said. I said that you can't fix medicare by raising taxes on the rich, because they don't have enough money. So who said you could? You were replying to Dio, and he didn't. He just said the rich would have to pay their fair share.

Apparently you have a Magical Dio Translator where when he says "fair share" that means "all of it," which is a nice way of saying: same game you were doing in the last thread we shared.

I get tired of these charades.Me too. Could you stop 'em?

It's like the Bush tax cuts - Lefties play this shell game all the time: "If we just rescind the Bush tax cuts, we can save 3 trillion dollars!". But a good chunk of those tax cuts went to the poor and middle class. Sigh.

You realize that 'lefties' are not only aware of this, but have been discussing the difference on dozens of blogs ad nauseum over the past four years.

It ain't no fucking shell game - we know damned well that's what it means, and we mean it anyway.
At what point does the middle class come into play with you? I've been for rescinding the Bush tax cuts - all of them - since the beginning. Because, you know, I argued vehemently against their passage.

So the answer would be, 2001.



All the evidence right on this board. And right in this thread. Where? You always make such sweeping statements, then there's nothing ever behind them.
Diogenes portrays the problem as 'the elite' putting the screws to the little guy, and that the problem is that the rich don't pay their fair share. Funny, I read his post in a completely different way.

Dio was talking about the Ryan plan, whose basic components are to cut rich people's taxes by $3 trillion, and pay for it by cutting Medicare payments by roughly the same amount.

As I understood him, he was saying that if neither the Ryan plan nor any close relation was enacted, [I]the rich would have to pay their fair share because these $3 trillion in cuts wouldn't exist.

Is he saying anything about fixing the financing of Medicare as it is? NO. He's talking about the Ryan plan. He says so upfront.

So you take his words, and make them about something else, and use that as an indictment of libruls in general.

Nice work if you can get it. But absolutely shallow and misleading debating.

[Merijeek]

You realize that 'lefties' are not only aware of this, but have been discussing the difference on dozens of blogs ad nauseum over the past four years.

It ain't no fucking shell game - we know damned well that's what it means, and we mean it anyway.

See, that's the part that the short-sighted like Sam will never be able to comprehend. To him, paying taxes is like the worst thing that could ever happen to someone. Who's willing to accept that, even if it's the best move for the country as a whole? I mean, what's in it for them?

Roads? I never drive done Elm street. Let it crumble. Keeping old people from dying on the streets because they made the mistake of getting old? Who gives a fuck, my grandparents were considerate enough to have died already.

Nobody would ever willingly allow their taxes to go up. Anyone who would allow it just doesn't understand what they're actually advocating. That's why they need to spend some time listening to the Ron and Grover Radio Show.

-Joe

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Thanks, RTF.

Sam, the Ryan plan doesn't fix anything and isn't responsible. You can't dig yourself out of debt by cutting revenue. That's just stupid. Ryan's plan cannot and will not blanace the budget, and is not intended to do so. It's an attempt to rob Medicare in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. It's a great deal for the wealthy, but does nothing for the working classes (I can't say "middle class" anymore), and will ultimately only make the public health care bill more expensive since we'll be paying exorbitant emergency room bills instead Medicare. Ryan's plan would call for the government to act like a reverse Robin Hood, stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, The pretense in the right wing media that Ryan's plan is somehow "adult" or "responsible" is a joke. If it was adult and responsible, it was raise revenues - and saying it has to raise revenues doesn't mean there shouldn't be budget cuts, by the way. There has to be both. There is probably even room to cut Medicare, but that has to be done in a more responsible way, not by giving sick people worthless vouchers, but by means testing. I think we need means testing for Social Security too, and of course, Defense can be cut WAY back (starting with dumping independent contractors), but anybody who says they can balance the budget without restoring tax responsibilities for the upper classes (I'd like to see it go back up the Eisenhower levels, but even Reagan levels would make a huge difference) is a hustler.

We also need to do something about the outsourcing of jobs, which is a huge problem that neither party seems to care about.

[Chronos]

Ah, OK, gotcha. So the middle class have more money than the rich. Makes perfect sense.

[jsgoddess]

Everybody's coming out to play:

The loftiest trial balloon yet from Rudy Giuliani’s camp was hoisted up on Monday night by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who told reporters that the former New York mayor and 2008 candidate was leaning toward mounting a run.

A 2008 Giuliani aide told Power Play that key members of the old team are “staying loose” in anticipation of a potential run. He said the exploration seemed to have entered “a different phase” and that Giuliani had grown increasingly serious as the Republican field took shape. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/24/giuiani-sees-opening-2012-field/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29)

[RTFirefly]

Rudy must be a glutton for punishment, that's all I've got to say.

Mr. "Noun, Verb, 9/11" isn't very relevant a decade after 9/11 (especially now that Obama got bin Laden), and his rep as some sort of folk hero has pretty much been trashed anyway. In the last primary season, he kept on dropping out of earlier primaries in order to make a stand in later primaries because the more voters saw of him, the less they liked him.

If your days of not taking him seriously have come to a middle, that's the appropriate reaction.

[Oldeb]

Giulani's career came to end when he announced, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama," when he was on Good Morning America (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/08/giuliani-says-no-domestic-terror-attacks-under-bush/).

[Chronos]

Whoa, I had heard about the Usual Suspect talking heads saying that, but I didn't realize that Giuliani did, too. You'd think that he, of all people, would remember that one.

[aruvqan]

Hmmmm....let's see. It might be easiest to break this down by categories:

No Intention of actually running…
Michele Bachmann
John R. Bolton
Sarah Palin
Donald Trump
Ron Paul
Jon Huntsman, Jr.

Might form an exploratory committee and/or do a few straw polls, but not serious…*
Rand Paul
Rudy Giuliani
Newt Gingrich
Judd Gregg
Steve King
Paul Ryan
Rick Santorum
Haley Barbour
Gary E. Johnson
George Pataki
John Thune
Bob Riley
Buddy Roemer

Probably in it for the long haul…
Mitch Daniels
Tim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee

* Absent some watershed moment and/or sea change in American politics.

Can I use a baseball bat to the knees, or am I restricted to saddle weights?

I am just starting to research the candidates - I won't really make any decisions until about primary voting time.

[Voyager]

Not at all what I said. In fact, not even close to what I said. I said that you can't fix medicare by raising taxes on the rich, because they don't have enough money. I specifically said that the problems the U.S. is facing will require a combination of raising taxes AND cutting spending.


You clearly don't understand that any Republican candidate saying this will be effectively out of the race in a nanosecond, with a heaping tongue-lashing from Rush to boot. Your position matches that of the Democratic party far more than the Republican party.
Social Security can be easily fixed by, among other things, raising the cap. I don't know where the rich start, but it is with way more money than the current cap.

Medicare's problems are partially from the Bush giveaway, which made the situation worse, but mostly from the increase in healthcare costs. That is affecting both private and public insurance. Making all insurance as inefficient as private insurance is is not going to help any. Too bad Palin pre-emptively cut off any reasonable discussion of end of life care.

Interestingly, the recession has caused a relative decrease in health care spending as compared to the expectations of the insurance companies, which has increased their profits a ton. They are responding, of course by requesting double digit increases in premiums, because they are afraid people will start using it again.

Is increasing Medicare taxes (for almost all) more reasonable than a voucher program which will leave people at the mercy of premium increases from private insurers? Especially for a group of clients who are going to cost the insurance companies a lot more than the average of the entire population? Are you willing to force the insurance companies to takes seniors as customers for a reasonable price?

[Voyager]

Whoa, I had heard about the Usual Suspect talking heads saying that, but I didn't realize that Giuliani did, too. You'd think that he, of all people, would remember that one.

Let's not forget that his nominee for leader of Homeland Security went to jail, and also used an apartment meant for Ground Zero workers as a love nest. Good judge of character, that one.

[Zakalwe]

Wow. I had totally forgotten that I put that list together, wonder how I did...


Here's how the scoring works. The candidates are identified by my original prediction:
(NR=No intention of running)
(EC=Exploratory committee, but not serious)
(R=Running)

Answers in the (NR) or (R) categories are worth a point (plus or minus).
Answers in the (EC) are worth half a point (it's really a chickenshit category anyway).

Right on! (1pt)
Tim Pawlenty(R) - A win.
Mitt Romney (R) - Duh.
Donald Trump(NR) - Did anybody really think The Hair was serious?

Correctumundo! (.5pt)
Newt Gingrich(EC) - Called the committee right, still waiting to see how serious. I think it's a PAC/money thing.
Buddy Roemer(EC)- Has announced his EC.
Gary E. Johnson(EC) - When one Libertarian is just not enough...
Rick Santorum(EC) - Only in bizarro world does he have a shot, but that won't stop Ole Frothy Fecal Matter from running, NO SIR!

Seriously, who can't even be assed to form an EC?(-.5pt)
Paul Ryan(EC) - Appears to be out.
Rand Paul(EC) - I know it's not official yet, but Dad's running so I'll take the loss.
Haley Barbour(EC) - Says he's out. Doesn't really surprise me, but I figured he'd at least try Iowa before dropping.
George Pataki(EC) - Honestly, don't know what I was thinking here. My bad.
John Thune(EC) - Says "Not it". I don't feel bad about this one since I didn't even remember that he was a possible candidate.

I was drunk!(-1pt):
Ron Paul(NR) - Hmmm...does The Huckster and Daniels both not running count as a sea change?
Mitch Daniels(R) - Bailed! Missed this one. I'm still a little shocked
Mike Huckabee(R) - Dammit, missed this one too. But who am I to argue with God?
Jon Huntsman, Jr.(NR) - Is running, no win here.

Still waiting - could go either way(0pts)
Michele Bachmann(NR) - I think she's bucking for VP not POTUS, but I probably got this one wrong.
Sarah Palin(NR) - Jury out, but word is that I called this one correctly. SNL may not recover...
John R. Bolton(NR) - I want to see this one be wrong, because it'll be *fun*!
Rudy Giuliani(EC) - Word is might be running. Not going to win anything, but hey, paycheck!
Judd Gregg(EC) - Says he's running, but hasn't actually, ya know, done anything about it.
Steve King(EC) - Man I loved Salem's Lot! Oh, not that Steve King...
Bob Riley(EC) - Depends on whether or not Scarborough can talk him into it or not.

Out of left field
Herman 'Citizen' Cain - Yeah, me too. Who?
Roy "10 Commandments" Moore - Too stupid to be really entertaining. PALATR is not a challenge.
Andy Martin - Who may actually be Orly Taitz in drag. Dude, the Birther thing is sooooo 2010.
Fred Karger - Gay GOP Presidential candidate. Yeah, I don't really get it either. It's like saying 'Catholic Muslim'.



So my current score is: -1.5 pts.

Hey, is that good enough to end up on a talk show?

[Onomatopoeia]

Fred Karger - Gay GOP Presidential candidate. Yeah, I don't really get it either. It's like saying 'Catholic Muslim'.

I laughed. :D

[jsgoddess]

Mitt Romney (17%) and Sarah Palin (15%) now lead a smaller field of potential Republican presidential candidates in rank-and-file Republicans' preferences for the party's 2012 nominee. Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain essentially tie for third, with Cain registering 8% support in his initial inclusion in Gallup "trial heat" polling. Notably, 22% of Republicans do not have a preference at this point. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147806/Romney-Palin-Lead-Reduced-GOP-Field-2012.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics)

This is the closest comparison poll from Gallup that I can find, from May of 2007:

The latest poll finds little change in Republicans' nomination preferences. Giuliani has held a significant lead over McCain in each poll since February. In the current poll, 34% of Republicans and independent-leaning Republicans name Giuliani as their top choice for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, while 20% choose McCain. Fred Thompson -- the actor and former Tennessee senator who said he is considering a candidacy -- is chosen by 13% of Republicans. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who has also hinted at a possible candidacy, gets 8% support, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney gets 7%. All other candidates score at 2% or lower. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/27523/Clinton-Solidifies-Lead-Among-Democrats-Giuliani-Still-Tops-GOP-Field.aspx)

[Crane]

It has always been, and still is, a Palin/Romney race. Palin will squash Romney early and move on to the nomination.

Crane

[RTFirefly]

It has always been, and still is, a Palin/Romney race. Palin will squash Romney early and move on to the nomination. I'd be delighted to bet against Palin's winning the nomination. Picking up enough delegates in enough states to win a major-party nomination is something that requires organization.

While it's true that this doesn't mean the candidate him/herself needs to be organized, the candidate needs to hire someone who can organize the large-scale enterprise that a campaign for a major party's nomination inevitably is, and give them the money and authority to do their job.

So far, there's nothing to indicate that Palin has even that modest degree of self-discipline. Maybe there should be little more to a campaign than showing up, giving speeches, and getting votes, but that's not the way it is. But I think that's the way Palin sees it.

[Crane]

Actually, Palin is running a very disciplined campaign. Media exposure is a negative for Palin, so there has been none. Her bus tour is personal and what you will see of it on the media is the patriotic propaganda on the outside of the bus. She also has a movie being released that will reinforce the base belief that the media is the enemy.

Palin has hired some high powered help. They are running a skilled, aloof campaign that promotes her strengths - celibrity outsider maverick image - and avoids her weakness - media exposure.

Discipline? - Perhaps you'd like to compare her campaign to that of Gingrich.

Crane

[appleciders]

I'd be delighted to bet against Palin's winning the nomination. Picking up enough delegates in enough states to win a major-party nomination is something that requires organization.

While it's true that this doesn't mean the candidate him/herself needs to be organized, the candidate needs to hire someone who can organize the large-scale enterprise that a campaign for a major party's nomination inevitably is, and give them the money and authority to do their job.

So far, there's nothing to indicate that Palin has even that modest degree of self-discipline. Maybe there should be little more to a campaign than showing up, giving speeches, and getting votes, but that's not the way it is. But I think that's the way Palin sees it.

I agree. Palin is too polarizing, even among the GOP, to win the nomination. The GOP nearly always nominates the most moderate figure in the primaries (McCain, Dole, H. W. Bush, Reagan). She's got high unfavorables even among her own party. Roger Ailes hates her, and I suspect that she won't get favorable coverage even from Fox. I'd bet against Palin for the nomination.

[Crane]

You are supporting my point - she has to remain aloof from the media. The more they attack, the better she looks to her base.

Crane

[Tom Scud]

The GOP nearly always nominates the most moderate figure in the primaries (McCain, Dole, H. W. Bush, Reagan).

Reagan?

[appleciders]

Reagan?

Not as strong an example as the others, maybe, but he's not that far right. He did allow Congress to raise taxes, and as Governor of California he actually supported gay rights. I'm not a fan, but as he ran in the primary he wasn't that far right.

[smithsb]

Regan was a centerist. Some highlights.
Raised taxes 11 times in 8 years.
Union President and member.
Passed MediCal while Governor.
Raised taxes in California.
Tripled the Federal Budget deficit.
Massively grew the size of the Federal Government
Liberalized abortion laws while Governor.
Granted amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants.

So, Yes Reagan.

[Chronos]

They are running a skilled, aloof campaign that ... avoids her weakness - media exposure. Except that avoiding media exposure is the exact opposite of a campaign. I mean, by that measure, I'm running a better Presidential campaign than she is, since I'm managing to not get any media exposure at all.

[jsgoddess]

I actually love the idea of Palin running a campaign in which she is utterly, blessedly, silent. I hope she campaigns forever.

[Crane]

Chronos,

Perhaps, but you are not touring the early primary states in a red, white and blue bus.

Crane

[jsgoddess]

Chronos,

Perhaps, but you are not touring the early primary states in a red, white and blue bus.

Crane

He could be and we just don't know.

Chronos has my vote!

[yissplan]

I think predicting Palin is tricky. She's the type of person who is like "Hey if God is sending me signs pointing to my destiny as a 2012 candidate, then You BETCHA I'm gonna run." Palin ducks and weaves even more than McCain, and at this point I'm betting that even she doesn't know what she's going to do yet.

[Chronos]

But touring key states doesn't mean anything without media exposure. I mean, you need some exposure for folks to even know to show up at your public speaking events, and then you need coverage of those events in order for them to mean anything to anyone beyond the few thousand who show up to them.

[gonzomax]

I was reading the new front runner is Giuliani. When you have a front runner ,a parrot that squawks 911 over and over , it shows what a terrible selection you have. He has many scandals to explain if his ego allows him to join the 7 dwarfs.

[Crane]

Giuliani?

You jest!

Crane

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I was reading the new front runner is Giuliani. When you have a front runner ,a parrot that squawks 911 over and over , it shows what a terrible selection you have. He has many scandals to explain if his ego allows him to join the 7 dwarfs.



"Noun, verb, 9-11"? His chance of winning anything went out the window the moment that bullet went through Bin Laden's head. He'll be in town on a public speaking tour, by the way.

[Crane]

Big Giulli is sub-Johnson as a candidate.

Strictly political cat barf.

Crane

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Rudi's back for another shot after coming ever so close to winning last time. Maybe he didn't skip enough states last time.

Palin is apparently going to run her campaign with a bus tour and a movie and without traditional campaigning operations and without talking to the liberal (everyone but FOX) media who might try to trick her by asking her about Africa without specifying Africa the country or Africa the continent.

And the neo-secessionist Perry wants to take over the government he so abhors.

What kind of bizarro freak show is this?

[Crane]

The Republican party.

Crane

[Gyrate]

Is Palin actually going to be on the bus this time? ISTR that last time her bus tour involved her flying between destinations and pretending to have been on the bus.

[Simplicio]

Is Palin actually going to be on the bus this time? ISTR that last time her bus tour involved her flying between destinations and pretending to have been on the bus.

I dunno, but a campaign bus tour where she doesn't really have a campaign and she's not really riding the bus seems like something someone could write a good philosophy dissertation on.

[Sam Stone]

I don't know... Maybe she's some kind of genius after all. This non-media, unannounced tour has got the media in a tizzy, and she's getting far more press coverage than she probably would have gotten had she done the traditional tour thing.

I have no idea what she's up to, but I have to admit she's got a certain style. Biking into 'Rolling Thunder' on the back of a hog may not be presidential, but it's entertaining. She certainly knows how to keep herself in the spotlight.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That's not a skill. If all else fails, she can always get her tits out, but I don't think anyone would argue that Christy Canyon is media-savvy.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't know... Maybe she's some kind of genius after all. This non-media, unannounced tour has got the media in a tizzy.
What do you mean by "tizzy?" I haven't noticed much more than cursory coverage of it.

Palin has become sort of a has-been actually. She does not generate the interest that she did a couple of years ago. Even most conservatives have lost interest in her.

The biking thing would be something if there was anything authentic or genuine about it, but there isn't. She's not a biker, that was just a contrived populist pose.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I don't know... Maybe she's some kind of genius after all. This non-media, unannounced tour has got the media in a tizzy, and she's getting far more press coverage than she probably would have gotten had she done the traditional tour thing.

I have no idea what she's up to, but I have to admit she's got a certain style. Biking into 'Rolling Thunder' on the back of a hog may not be presidential, but it's entertaining. She certainly knows how to keep herself in the spotlight.

This is true. There is something to say for that. Unfortunately, there's not much substance once questions get asked.

[BrainGlutton]

James Howard Kunstler Godwinizes Sarah Palin. Perfectly. (http://kunstler.com/blog/2011/05/memorial-day-enter-hitler-release-20.html) :D

[Tom Scud]

James Howard Kunstler

So... where are those gas riots JHK was predicting for oh I think it was 2005 or so?

[smithsb]

Jim DeMint says he's considering jumping into 2012 race (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20067894-503544.html)

Add another one to handicap for the nomination. Crowded out at the Teabagger fringe with kinda/might/maybe runners.

[Crane]

A field of kinda/might/maybe folks running non-campaigns - wierd!

Crane

[RTFirefly]

Discipline? - Perhaps you'd like to compare her campaign to that of Gingrich.
Why? I think Palin's got a chance (albeit a remote one), given the field, of winning the GOP nomination. I pretty loudly said in this forum that I thought Gingrich had no chance whatsoever.

I agree that Gingrich ran a less disciplined campaign (yeah, past tense IMHO) than Palin is running, but you'll notice the inequalities are running in the same direction here.

[RTFirefly]

Regan was a centerist. Some highlights.
Raised taxes 11 times in 8 years.
Union President and member.
Passed MediCal while Governor.
Raised taxes in California.
Tripled the Federal Budget deficit.
Massively grew the size of the Federal Government
Liberalized abortion laws while Governor.
Granted amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants.

So, Yes Reagan.Reagan was a centrist by the standards of now.

But if you consider the GOP as of 1980, and who was actually running for its Presidential nomination that year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_1980#Candidates), Reagan was at the right end of the spectrum, excepting possibly Rep. Phil Crane who almost nobody noticed was running. His main rivals were Bush the Elder, comfortably to Reagan's left (at least, until Reagan selected him as his running mate), and John Anderson, way to Reagan's left.

[furt]

I don't know... Maybe she's some kind of genius after all. This non-media, unannounced tour has got the media in a tizzy, and she's getting far more press coverage than she probably would have gotten had she done the traditional tour thing.

I have no idea what she's up to, but I have to admit she's got a certain style. Biking into 'Rolling Thunder' on the back of a hog may not be presidential, but it's entertaining. She certainly knows how to keep herself in the spotlight.Every day that goes by, I increasingly think she could run, could win the nomination, and even win the general. Whether by design or luck or both, it's increasingly apparent that she knows how to go around the media better than anyone else.

[Simplicio]

The latest PPP Iowa caucus poll puts John Huntsman's support at 1. Not 1%, just 1 (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/05/jon-huntsmans-supporter.html).

Guy has some ground to make up before the Primary.

[Chronos]

Out of how many respondents?

[smithsb]

Jim DeMint backtracks on potential presidential run (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20067894-503544.html)

Perhaps a near record for changing a maybe/kinda/almost leap into the fray?

[Simplicio]

Out of how many respondents?

I don't think they posted the actual poll yet, but their last Iowa GOP primary poll had 481 respondents. So probably a number around there.

[Jas09]

Out of how many respondents?400-something, IIRC.

[Chronos]

OK, so that's not all that far removed from 1%, then.

[BobLibDem]

The latest PPP Iowa caucus poll puts John Huntsman's support at 1. Not 1%, just 1 (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/05/jon-huntsmans-supporter.html).

Guy has some ground to make up before the Primary.

On the bright side, he has the easiest task of doubling or even tripling his support.

[DSeid]

The latest PPP Iowa caucus poll puts John Huntsman's support at 1. Not 1%, just 1 (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/05/jon-huntsmans-supporter.html).

Guy has some ground to make up before the Primary.
To be fair, his chances, such as thy are, are pegged on doing well in New Hampshire. Yes, he still has a long way to go. But there a lot of New Hampshire GOP primary voters looking for someone to vote for. He is not known so far but he also has no negatives. He is intelligent and articulate. His current low standings don't reflect too much, what dooms him is that he is too moderate to excite the GOP base.

[RTFirefly]

I'm rooting for NJ Gov. Christie to jump into the race. What could be more entertaining than a candidate who takes a state helicopter to his son's baseball game, and has a state limo show up to cart him the last 100 yards from the football field where the helicopter landed to the adjacent baseball field?

And yeah, he's refusing to reimburse the state for the cost of the helicopter flight. Sweet. :)

[Crane]

I just noticed, in the videos, that the Palin family vacation is the Sarah & Piper Political Tour.

Crane

[elucidator]

I'm rooting for NJ Gov. Christie to jump into the race. What could be more entertaining than a candidate who takes a state helicopter to his son's baseball game, and has a state limo show up to cart him the last 100 yards from the football field where the helicopter landed to the adjacent baseball field?

And yeah, he's refusing to reimburse the state for the cost of the helicopter flight. Sweet. :)

You seen the blubber on that pork star? You seriously think he could walk a hundred yards?

[jsgoddess]

Not to be outdone by Bachmann's interesting spin on American history, here is Sarah Palin's take on Paul Revere:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-cnn-anchors-deadpan-reaction-to-sarah-palins-version-of-paul-reveres-midnight-ride/

[Chronos]

What I don't get is, can't she hire a speechwriter? I mean, even Palin has to be capable of reading off something pre-written, and the speechwriter could be some wonk that nobody ever actually has to see-- She'd still get all the attention.

[RTFirefly]

You seen the blubber on that pork star? You seriously think he could walk a hundred yards?Maybe that could be the first step in his couch-to-5K program. :D

[RTFirefly]

Not to be outdone by Bachmann's interesting spin on American history, here is Sarah Palin's take on Paul Revere:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-cnn-anchors-deadpan-reaction-to-sarah-palins-version-of-paul-reveres-midnight-ride/
I got the horse right here! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxAX74gM8DY)

[Maus Magill]

What I don't get is, can't she hire a speechwriter? I mean, even Palin has to be capable of reading off something pre-written, and the speechwriter could be some wonk that nobody ever actually has to see-- She'd still get all the attention.

Why would she need that? She's obviously more than capable of speaking off the cuff. It's not her fault that you didn't study US History.

[Zakalwe]

Why would she need that? She's obviously more than capable of speaking off the cuff. It's not her fault that you didn't study US History.No shit. Everybody knows that Revere would have made Chuck Norris his BITCH if they'd been alive at the same time! I mean, that time he single-handedly defeated the British at Concord and then captured Benedict Arnold whilst bringing guns to Washington's Army? Dude, the Norris could only hope to tie Revere's shoes (if he had laces which he didn't - he strapped guns to his feet and ran on those).

[Crane]

The amazing part is that her base doesn't understand the problem. They think she's right - after all she's home schooling her daughters.

Crane

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Mitt Romney damaged himself further, saying...

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that. It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

Sure he hedged it with "may be," but that ain't gonna cut it in today's Republican party.

[Simplicio]

Mitt Romney damaged himself further, saying...

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that. It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

Sure he hedged it with "may be," but that ain't gonna cut it in today's Republican party.

I guess, though two years ago, the same thing was part of the official GOP platform, the sitting Republican President believed the same thing (granted they weren't in any huge rush to do anything about it) and the GOP Presidential nominee had recently been one of the prime movers behind a cap-and-trade plan. I guess the reaction to Romneys statement will be a good measure of how much the GOP has changed in the last two years.

[Merijeek]

Mitt Romney damaged himself further, saying...

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that. It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

Sure he hedged it with "may be," but that ain't gonna cut it in today's Republican party.

Really, he pretty much just skullfucked Saint Ronnie on stage.

-Joe

[Chefguy]

Noted slimeball and homophobe Rick Santorum has now declared himself (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/culture-warrior-rick-santorum-jumps-in/?hp)as running (or slithering) for the nomination.

[Onomatopoeia]

Noted slimeball and homophobe Rick Santorum has now declared himself (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/culture-warrior-rick-santorum-jumps-in/?hp)as running (or slithering) for the nomination.Yep, I heard that this morning on NPR. I needed the chuckle. :)

[Merijeek]

Noted slimeball and homophobe Rick Santorum has now declared himself (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/culture-warrior-rick-santorum-jumps-in/?hp)as running (or slithering) for the nomination.

I'm sure Obama is totally terrified of THAT one.

Romney or a nobody. Those are the threats to Obama.

-Joe

[Chronos]

And all of the likely nobodies are already out of it, too.

[Cisco]

Noted slimeball and homophobe Rick Santorum has now declared himself (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/culture-warrior-rick-santorum-jumps-in/?hp)as running (or slithering) for the nomination.

He's gonna have a Google problem.

[Gyrate]

He's gonna have a Google problem.The word is spreading...

[Profound Gibberish]

As for Jindal, he comes across to me as very awkward and unsure. He would totally tank in a debate at this point. I believe he needs some additional years to mature.

And what is wrong with actually serving out your term as governor with you focus on your current job and not the next one?

[RTFirefly]

And what is wrong with actually serving out your term as governor with you focus on your current job and not the next one?Because Republicans are absolutely desperate for a candidate that won't be a total embarrassment to the party.

Of course, the underlying problem is the nature of the party, and none of the potential candidates can get away from the positions they'd have to take to have a chance at the nomination, and how that would completely shred whatever reputation for integrity, credibility, or moderation they previously possessed, just in time for the general election.

Silk purses, sow's ears, and all that.

[JimH52]

I am new to the board, but I would like to say that Obama's chance at a second term lies entirely with the state of the economy. There is no one on the GOP side who can defeat him, one on one, if the unemployment rate settles near 8%.

[gonzomax]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/matt-taibbi-on-extremist-altar-boy-rick-santorum-20110606
Here is Tiabi's take on the very divisive and low rung politician, Santorum. He is a bottom feeder who panders to the lowest and meanest of the right wing. How will that translate to a national majority.

[gonzomax]

I think if Obama perp walked a few of the bankers, he would get a lot of love. They caused the mess and most people feel unsettled because they have been allowed to walk off and go back to bilking their customers.
The justiec department has been working on that. It may be a case of Obama timing the arrests and trials for maximum benefit.

[JimH52]

I think if Obama perp walked a few of the bankers, he would get a lot of love. They caused the mess and most people feel unsettled because they have been allowed to walk off and go back to bilking their customers.
The justiec department has been working on that. It may be a case of Obama timing the arrests and trials for maximum benefit.

Good Point. I never thought of that.

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Pawlenty made a major economic position statement today. It's full of corkers. He would get rid of the Post Office, Amtrak and any good or service you can find on Google that is provided by the government. Oh, and there will be huge tax cuts as well.

I take this as a sign that Palin and Trump have been bogarting all media attention so T-Paw had to pull out something big to get noticed. It may be working as this is prominently displayed on the NY Times site right now (but of course, conservatives don't have any use for the Times and I don't know how big a story it is elsewhere.)

This could help win T-Paw some admiration and attention amongst conservatives but these stances will cost him in the general election if he should actually win the nomination.

[JimH52]

If you remember, McCain was so deperate to win the 2008 GOP nomination, that he actually hugged GW. How many times did you remember seeing that photo on the web. It may have won him the nomination, but it certainly hurt him in the general. I assume Pawlenty is thinking the same thing. He needs to win the nomination first.

Personally, Romney is the front runner and I don't see anyone that can upset him.

[Crane]

Palin is holding her own in the top 3 and she isn't even running. She will get a significant bump when she announces.

Crane

[JimH52]

Palin is holding her own in the top 3 and she isn't even running. She will get a significant bump when she announces.

Crane

I have my fingers crossed. A Palin run would be the best news the Dems have had in months.

[Crane]

I have mixed feelings about that.

Palin could win both the nomination and the Presidency. Expectations of Palin are low. She is being coached and may do very well with tightly controlled, limited, media exposure. Remember GW Bush and the scripted press conferences?

Crane

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Palin ...will get a significant bump when she announces.



And a few months later, another Down's Syndrome baby.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If she runs, she will have to answer questions from the media, and she will have to engage in debates. This is a woman who thinks that "What have you seen so far today?" is a "gotcha question" (and for her, it apparently IS). When she actually has to answer real questions and debate other candidates, she's going to be toast. She has to know that. I don't think she'll run.

[Voyager]

The amazing part is that her base doesn't understand the problem. They think she's right - after all she's home schooling her daughters.

Crane

It looks like her teaching of history is as effective as her teaching of sex ed.

[Crane]

Diogenes,

Why would she have to face the media? Her pitch is based on the idea that they set her up and twist her statements. She can refuse to debate on the grounds that it's all an insider trap.

Look at the poll numbers. She has eliminated Gingrich, topped Pawlenty, and controlled the media by saying nothing - and she isn't even running. Looks like a great campaign to me.

Crane

[JimH52]

Palin does not want Romney to win the GOP nomination. I think that is one reason she went to NH during his announcement. But at the same time, there is not room for Palin and Bachmann together in the field. Bachmann has hired Rolls and is going to run. So Palin needs to make her mind up quickly. Personally, I don't see her running. Like Huckabee, she is getting rich off of FOX. She won't run, but she will make a lot of noise...whatever that means.

[Crane]

Jim,

That is certainly possible, but I believe that if Palin chooses not to run then her career as a political celebrity is over. She has to prop up her image with some substance.

Once her numbers fade FOX will drop her like it did Beck. She's on a 90 day leash.

Crane

[JimH52]

Jim,

That is certainly possible, but I believe that if Palin chooses not to run then her career as a political celebrity is over. She has to prop up her image with some substance.

Once her numbers fade FOX will drop her like it did Beck. She's on a 90 day leash.

Crane

The day she finally goes away for good, will be a very good day.

[Zakalwe]

Diogenes,

Why would she have to face the media? Her pitch is based on the idea that they set her up and twist her statements. She can refuse to debate on the grounds that it's all an insider trap.

Look at the poll numbers. She has eliminated Gingrich, topped Pawlenty, and controlled the media by saying nothing - and she isn't even running. Looks like a great campaign to me.

CraneIt's the primary with a crowded field. Once it mano-a-mano, there's only two people can make news: you or your opponent. She can't concede the coverage at that point and as soon as she tries to get coverage, she's toast.

[JimH52]

If I were a betting man, my money would be on Romney. With his business background, and the way he bought the Olympics back, he should be the choice for the GOP. But stranger thing....

[Crane]

No doubt you are correct. But, Romney has to survive the primary battle, Palin and the fruitcakes can destroy him.

I've listened to the fruitcake argument - Romney is not a Christian, Romney is an establishment insider, Romney invented ObamaCare, Romney is not a true Conservative. Palin is one of us.

The fruitcakes believe that stuff and they vote in the primaries.

Crane

[Chefguy]

Pawlenty made a major economic position statement today. It's full of corkers. He would get rid of the Post Office, Amtrak and any good or service you can find on Google that is provided by the government. Oh, and there will be huge tax cuts as well.

I take this as a sign that Palin and Trump have been bogarting all media attention so T-Paw had to pull out something big to get noticed. It may be working as this is prominently displayed on the NY Times site right now (but of course, conservatives don't have any use for the Times and I don't know how big a story it is elsewhere.)

This could help win T-Paw some admiration and attention amongst conservatives but these stances will cost him in the general election if he should actually win the nomination.

Yeah, those economic ideas have worked so well in the past. So we reduce government spending, which is code for "fire a bunch of people" and that's going to help consumer spending and reduce unemployment? Have any of these morons ever read an economics book? :rolleyes:

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It should probably be mentioned that Pawlenty has no compunction about being as heartless as he says he will be. I work with disabled people in Minnesota, and he repeatedlycut funding to those people - people who are truly the most helpless and vulnerable - w're talking profoundly disabled in some cases - multiple times. He truly has no conscience. His budget cuts have actually affected my salary. I've had to take two pay cuts because of that prick (and better me than have to further reduce services to our clients). I'd rather see Sarah Palin get elected than T-Paw. That's how much I despise him.

From what I've heard from those who have inside knowledge of the state legislature, I'm not alone in that. The guy is a ruthless, self-serving careerist who would push hsi own grandmother in front of a bus if it helped him politically.

[Crane]

In a word - Republican.

Crane

[Maus Magill]

It should probably be mentioned that Pawlenty has no compunction about being as heartless as he says he will be. I work with disabled people in Minnesota, and he repeatedlycut funding to those people - people who are truly the most helpless and vulnerable - w're talking profoundly disabled in some cases - multiple times. He truly has no conscience. His budget cuts have actually affected my salary. I've had to take two pay cuts because of that prick (and better me than have to further reduce services to our clients). I'd rather see Sarah Palin get elected than T-Paw. That's how much I despise him.

From what I've heard from those who have inside knowledge of the state legislature, I'm not alone in that. The guy is a ruthless, self-serving careerist who would push hsi own grandmother in front of a bus if it helped him politically.

Luckily, I've seen raw potatoes that are polling better than Pawlenty.

[Quartz]

The guy is a ruthless, self-serving careerist who would push hsi own grandmother in front of a bus if it helped him politically.

Isn't that SOP for most politicians of all hues, alas?

[JimH52]

No doubt you are correct. But, Romney has to survive the primary battle, Palin and the fruitcakes can destroy him.

I've listened to the fruitcake argument - Romney is not a Christian, Romney is an establishment insider, Romney invented ObamaCare, Romney is not a true Conservative. Palin is one of us.

The fruitcakes believe that stuff and they vote in the primaries.

Crane

It will be interesting to see just how far to the right Romney will go, in order to win the nomination. If he drift too far, he may loose the Independents.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Isn't that SOP for most politicians of all hues, alas?

It is rumored that some are capable of integrity...

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

I guess, though two years ago, the same thing was part of the official GOP platform, the sitting Republican President believed the same thing (granted they weren't in any huge rush to do anything about it) and the GOP Presidential nominee had recently been one of the prime movers behind a cap-and-trade plan. I guess the reaction to Romneys statement will be a good measure of how much the GOP has changed in the last two years.

Rush Limbaugh absolutely trashed Romney over global warming on his radio show. "Bye, Bye nomination" were some of his choice words for Mitt. Of course Rush doesn't get get to pick the nominee by himself, but he is the leading voice of the right and his opinion still carries a lot of heft even though McCain won without his blessing.

[Simplicio]

Rush Limbaugh absolutely trashed Romney over global warming on his radio show. "Bye, Bye nomination" were some of his choice words for Mitt. Of course Rush doesn't get get to pick the nominee by himself, but he is the leading voice of the right and his opinion still carries a lot of heft even though McCain won without his blessing.

Rush didn't like Dole either. And supported Buchannan vs Bush I in 1992. So he's 1 for 4 as far as supporting winning GOP primary candidates. Plus its not like he was ever going to be a big Romney supporter Global Warming or not.

Which is kinda my point, Romney's best bet for the primary is to appeal to the more moderate Republicans and hope there's still enough of them left to give him the win (at least if some of the other Republicans manage to split the hard-core conservative vote). Limbaugh and Co. are never going to support him (well, at least not before he wins the nomination and goes up against Obama). As recently as two years ago, the GOP was still nominating moderates (or at least candidates with moderate records), so its not that bad a strategy, and he's never going to convince people he's more conservative then Bachmann or Cain or even Pawlenty, even if he scoffs at Global Warming with every breath between now and the GOP convention.

[JimH52]

Rush didn't like Dole either. And supported Buchannan vs Bush I in 1992. So he's 1 for 4 as far as supporting winning GOP primary candidates. Plus its not like he was ever going to be a big Romney supporter Global Warming or not.

Which is kinda my point, Romney's best bet for the primary is to appeal to the more moderate Republicans and hope there's still enough of them left to give him the win (at least if some of the other Republicans manage to split the hard-core conservative vote). Limbaugh and Co. are never going to support him (well, at least not before he wins the nomination and goes up against Obama). As recently as two years ago, the GOP was still nominating moderates (or at least candidates with moderate records), so its not that bad a strategy, and he's never going to convince people he's more conservative then Bachmann or Cain or even Pawlenty, even if he scoffs at Global Warming with every breath between now and the GOP convention.

All that...

[Crane]

The more Romney talks the lower he drifts in the polls. Pawlenty is doing even worse. They still share the charisma of a wet cigar butt.

Palin is still sitting on the side lines watching the field self-destruct.

Crane

[GIGObuster]

Rush Limbaugh absolutely trashed Romney over global warming on his radio show. "Bye, Bye nomination" were some of his choice words for Mitt. Of course Rush doesn't get get to pick the nominee by himself, but he is the leading voice of the right and his opinion still carries a lot of heft even though McCain won without his blessing.
Rush then did a 180 on McCain after he nominated Palin for VP, Rush congratulated McCain and he even putt the McCain/Palin logo on his site. And I think that was part of the reason why McCain did go for Palin, he needed the fruitcake vote.

Palin and the fruitcakes.
The most horrifying band name!

[Sam Stone]

I would now put about a 25% probability on the prospect of Paul Ryan entering the race. Conservatives are pushing him more and more, and he refuses to say that he won't run - he'll just say "I have no plans to run right now".

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

I would now put about a 25% probability on the prospect of Paul Ryan entering the race. Conservatives are pushing him more and more, and he refuses to say that he won't run - he'll just say "I have no plans to run right now".

So that means you would put 3 to 1 odds against Ryan entering? I'll take that bet for $100. Deal?

[Crane]

A Paul Ryan candidacy is DOA. I do not believe he will waste his time.

Crane

[Recovering Republican]

Romney- Able to raise gobs of money, loved by the people who really run things in the GOP (the wealthy), and has the advantage that he came in second (kind of) last time. Disadvantages- A Mormon in a party dominated by Evangelicals who consider Mormons to be heretics, a guy who made his fortune essentially putting people out of jobs as a corporate raider, while hiring illegals to do the gardening at his 4 mansions.

Palin- Loved by the grass roots, gets instant attention just by tweeting. Disadvantages- Dumber than a bag of hammers, disliked by non-Crazy Americans. Also, not a real campaigner, she just doesn't have the stanima.

Newt Gingrich- "He's Dead, Jim!"

Michelle Bachmann- Is the real deal for Tea Party types, and unlike Palin, can talk about issues with substance. Walks the walk on family values, has adopted a lot of kids. Disadvantages- Crazier than Bat-poop. Still, she could be the Tea Party Standard bearer, and will have to be handled.

Rick Perry- Governor of a major state, has cred with both the establishments and the grass roots. Disadvantages- Has said some odd things, and I'm getting the impression, not very charismatic.

Tim Pawlenty- Moderate governor of a Blue state, could be competitive in midwest, has street cred amongst evangelicals. Disadvantage- Antidote for Insomnia.

Jon Huntsman - Another Mormon? Really? Other than just running to spite Romney, I don't see the point.

Herman Cain- Alan Keyes with a Pizza Box.

Santorum- Really?

Ron Paul - If Democrats were really feeling mischevious, they should all vote for Ron Paul in the primaries... Why not, there isn't a contest on the Democratic side.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

My point in calling Sam out here is that it's more like 12-1 or even 20-1 that Ryan will enter. You need to raise a shipload of money, make a zillion appearances in Iowa, etc. and you need to have done this by yesterday. But this way Sam can claim, if Ryan gets in, "See? I told you it was going to happen" and if he doesn't "See? I told you it was unlikely." If he really thinks it's only 3-1 against, well, money talks and bullshit walks.

[Crane]

Recovering,

Can't argue with that!


Crane

[Maus Magill]

Recovering Republican makes some great points.

Also, welcome to The Straight Dope.

[Profound Gibberish]

A good summary, RR. The big issue is that none of these guys are moderates and their party will not let them be. They will not attract the independents, and if they even try, they will lose their wingnuts. In addition, Obama has no scandals to latch onto. I believe the election will hinge on how people feel about the economy when they cast thier vote.

[Oy!]

Allright, here's my confusion:

Insofar as there is a true Romney (an issue very much in question given the number of times he has changed positions, sometimes, I gather, within the course of a single paragraph), it seems to be the governor of Massachusetts, right? I mean, if he'd really been a rabid right-winger, surely he would have chosen any of the other forty-nine states in which to live and run; he's a very wealthy man and could establish residency anywhere he pleased. So let's assume for the moment that he is by preference a non-batshit crazy Republican. He is also the leading Republican candidate in most polls.

A couple of weeks ago, we had the congressional by-election in NY26. one of the reddest districts in the country. Everyone pretty much agreed that the reason the Democrat won there was because the Republican candidate supported the Ryan kill-Medicare program. Let me restate that: the Republican lost among Republicans because she embraced kill-Medicare.

I understand why the Rush Limbaughs of the world are embracing the loony right wingnut policies, because it makes them money. But given that the most extreme of these views seems proven to alienate even Republican voters, why is it that all the candidates except Romney are racing each other to provide ever-increasingly extreme rightwing policy statements, while Romney himself dances around each issue as if expressing a moment of sanity might burn him?

I understand why if Rush Limbaugh is "the party." But looking at NY26, it would seem that Rush Limbaugh is not "the party." Shocking as the concept may be, it seems that the voters are actually "the party." And the voters aren't as batshit crazy as Rush Limbaugh. So why are Republican leaders acting as if they are?

[Marley23]

They're in deep shit if the Ryan plan is the GOP litmus test, and judging by Gingrich's campaign implosion, that's what it is right now. Far-right Republicans love it, and just about everyone else hates it.

[John DiFool]

Oy!, my WAG is that it's the mouth foamers who will be the most likely to vote, and also represent the most monolithic and largest GOP voting bloc.

[Oy!]

John, but didn't NY 26 establish that not to be true?

[Maus Magill]

NY 26 wasn't a Primary, though. It was a general election, where everybody could vote for anybody, not just for someone within their party.

It seems most of the candidates a tacking hard to starboard into The Batshit Triangle, becuase that's where they believe the Primary voters are. Whether or not they really are there is what we'll find out next January. In the meantime, the more looney you are, the more free TV time you get.

[Crane]

Look to starboard - hairy chested, foaming at the mouse, knuckle draggers - and those are the girls!

Crane

[Zakalwe]

NY 26 wasn't a Primary, though. It was a general election, where everybody could vote for anybody, not just for someone within their party.Unfortunately for the GOP, the primary is followed by a general election where even liberals and independents get to vote.

[JimH52]

Unfortunately for the GOP, the primary is followed by a general election where even liberals and independents get to vote.

That...

[Really Not All That Bright]

Unfortunately for the GOP, the primary is followed by a general election where even liberals and independents get to vote.
They're working on the problem as we speak.

[Recovering Republican]

Allright, here's my confusion:

Insofar as there is a true Romney (an issue very much in question given the number of times he has changed positions, sometimes, I gather, within the course of a single paragraph), it seems to be the governor of Massachusetts, right? I mean, if he'd really been a rabid right-winger, surely he would have chosen any of the other forty-nine states in which to live and run; he's a very wealthy man and could establish residency anywhere he pleased. So let's assume for the moment that he is by preference a non-batshit crazy Republican. He is also the leading Republican candidate in most polls.

I have always felt that Romney is a political chameleon, who is very good at trying to adapt to his environment. I'm not sure if the man has any core beliefs, other than serving the interests of big business.

The reason I call myself a "recovering" republican is that I realized a few years back that the GOP is really only interested serving the interests of big business. (Not that the Democrats are much better in that regard), and they use the social issues to whip people up.

in 2008, Romney calculated that McCain and Guiliani had the moderate side of the street sewn up, so he needed to play to the right wing, which didn't have an obvious champion initially. Fred Thompson got in late, and Huckabee was initially obscure. Also, early in the 2008 cycle, it wasn't really obvious how bad this next recession was going to be, so his business credentials weren't quite as important. (And frankly, this is a guy who got rich busting up unions and putting people out of work, not the best advertisement for nervous workers.)

Where Romney miscalculated is that he thought he could get Evangelicals, especially the Baptists, to live and let live on his Mormonism. Instead you had weird moments like Huckabee asking if Mormons believe if Jesus and Satan were brothers. Seriously. In 2008. He lost Iowa, McCain got an opening in NH, and the only reason he survived Michigan was because he promised to do anything to save the Auto Industry. (Later on, when President Obama actually DID save the auto industry, he was against it.)

This time, he's planning to run more to the center, letting Bachmann, Cain, Palin and other fight for the far right, and emphasizing his business credentials. Will it work? Who knows.

A couple of weeks ago, we had the congressional by-election in NY26. one of the reddest districts in the country. Everyone pretty much agreed that the reason the Democrat won there was because the Republican candidate supported the Ryan kill-Medicare program. Let me restate that: the Republican lost among Republicans because she embraced kill-Medicare.

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. there was a third party candidate who ran under the "Tea Party" banner who got 9% of the vote. Had that gone to the Republican, he would have won. This joker ran as both a Republican and Democrat at various times. But the Ryan Plan did scare a lot of people.

I understand why the Rush Limbaughs of the world are embracing the loony right wingnut policies, because it makes them money. But given that the most extreme of these views seems proven to alienate even Republican voters, why is it that all the candidates except Romney are racing each other to provide ever-increasingly extreme rightwing policy statements, while Romney himself dances around each issue as if expressing a moment of sanity might burn him?

I understand why if Rush Limbaugh is "the party." But looking at NY26, it would seem that Rush Limbaugh is not "the party." Shocking as the concept may be, it seems that the voters are actually "the party." And the voters aren't as batshit crazy as Rush Limbaugh. So why are Republican leaders acting as if they are?

The problem here - in both parties- is that you run to the extremes to get the nomination because those are the people who show up to primaries - the activists and the idealogues. Keep in mind that both Lieberman and Murkowski were outflanked in the primaries, but came back to win in the general in a three way race.

Limbaugh is not the party, obviously. He usually makes a point to stay neutral in primary races, so he doesn't have egg on his face when his choice loses. Case in point, he didn't endorse anyone in 2008 until Huckabee (a guy who said all the right things on social issues but terrified the economic conservatives with his populist talk) made some progress. Then he went double down backing Mitt Romney, and Romney still lost. He had no choice but to get behind McCain, whom he really dislikes going back to 2000.

[Crane]

Whatever his real qualifications, I doubt that Romney can survive the fruitcake vote in the primary. Also, his background in business is not seen as a positive in this economy.

Crane

[Onomatopoeia]

Whatever his real qualifications, I doubt that Romney can survive the fruitcake vote in the primary. Also, his background in business is not seen as a positive in this economy.

CraneSo Crane, who do you think will end up being the Republican nominee?

[Crane]

As I have posted here before - I believe Sarah Palin is the best opportunity for the Republican party to participate in the election. Palin has the celebrity to draw crowds and the skill to present a scripted message. She even has a remote chance of winning.

The Palin campaign strategy team is doing an excellent job. They clearly put the McCain campaign to shame.

So, especially in view of recent events (the emails turned out to be a positive), I believe the Republican candidate for President will be Sarah Palin.

Crane

[Quartz]

Then Obama will walk it. The best candidate for the Republicans that I've seen so far is Fred Karger, and he's handicapping himself by making his candidacy about gay rights. He should try talking less about gay issues and more about recapturing the spirit of Reagan.

But then, other than the gay issue, Karger's obscure and a blandie.

[Recovering Republican]

As I have posted here before - I believe Sarah Palin is the best opportunity for the Republican party to participate in the election. Palin has the celebrity to draw crowds and the skill to present a scripted message. She even has a remote chance of winning.

The Palin campaign strategy team is doing an excellent job. They clearly put the McCain campaign to shame.

So, especially in view of recent events (the emails turned out to be a positive), I believe the Republican candidate for President will be Sarah Palin.

Crane


Sorry, just don't see it. Even a majority of Republicans think she's unqualified for the office.

If I still voted Republican, (which I never will again after the 2008 debacle), I would probably put my chips behind Rick Perry. Pawlenty would be a second choice.

[JimH52]

I think Romney is still the frontrunner, but apparently he is leaving a very bitter taste in many republican's mouths. I think Palin was waiting for the e-mail to see what the general impression was before she announces. I think she now has a 70% chance of running. If Rick Perry runs, he may take the nomination, but I am not sure the country is ready for another Governor from Texas as President.

[Crane]

Perry would make less of an impact than Fred Thompson. The medical mandate issue alone would sink him.

We are not discussing electability. We are discussing the nomination. Romney will self destruct.

Palin is queen of the fruitcakes and she is winning.

Crane

[Recovering Republican]

Perry would make less of an impact than Fred Thompson. The medical mandate issue alone would sink him.

We are not discussing electability. We are discussing the nomination. Romney will self destruct.

Palin is queen of the fruitcakes and she is winning.

Crane

You work on the assumption that the Republicans don't look towards electablity when they do.

At the end of the day, John McCain won the 2008 nomination, despite Limbaugh screaming his lungs out, despite all the venom coming at him from Coulter, despite all the hate on wingnut websites like "TownHall" and "HotAir" calling him "Juan McAmnesty" and worse. At the end of it all, simple, Republican moderates looked at all the people the right loved arguing about whether Jesus and Satan were brothers and said, "No thanks".

The Republicans have not nominated an "unelectable candidate" since 1964. They've nominated guys who've lost- McCain, Dole, etc, but these guys weren't "Unelectable".

In fact, the system is geared towards a moderate. Super Tuesday is all "Blue States" that while the GOP has very little chance of taking them in November, they do tend to favor more middle of the road guys.

Also, again, I don't think Palin is actually running. I think she is just recharging her brand name.

[Cort]

I agree with Recovering Republican. Romney's an absolute shoe-in for the nomination. I'm 95% sure Palin will run, but she'll run knowing she hasn't got a hope in hell. It's not much of a gamble for her, considering her approval ratings among Republicans. I think she wants to play 'Kingmaker'. She'll run for nomination, get her face on TV for a few more months, lose, and then throw her weight behind Romney.

[Recovering Republican]

COrt- I don't think that is what I was saying.

I said that the REpublicans would nominate someone who was electable. I didn't say Romney was a shoe-in. I could see him losing to Pawlenty or Perry pretty easily, but those guys would be equally "electable". And frankly, looking at the economy, Obama's gots some splainin' to do.

I see Romney having several liabilities-

1) MOrmonism- Besides the animosity Evangelicals and Baptists feel about LDS, the fact is, they believe some pretty crazy stuff that would turn off even the non-religious. Mormonism is Scientology plus 150 years. There's going to be a very uncomfortable moment when someone is going to ask Romney (who will be running against the first black president) if he really thinks dark skin is a curse from God like the Book of Mormon says it is.

2) How I got rich- We are in an economy where everyone is afraid of losing their jobs, and neither party is offering much guidance. Romney made his money in places like AmPad where his business practices essentially consisted of downsizing people or Damon Instruments cheating their customers.

3) The Guy is as phony as a Hooter's Waitress - Not much to add to that. Who is the "real" Mitt Romney?

[Implicit]

3) The Guy is as phony as a Hooter's Waitress - Not much to add to that. Who is the "real" Mitt Romney?
I'm sure much will be made of his Mormonism in the primaries, but I'm not sure the base will have that much of a problem with it come an election. I don't see a downside to your second point, any business background is a plus for him compared to some of the other wingnuts and he's never going to appeal to unions.

This third one is a problem now and forever though. He ran as a moderate in Mass, governed much farther to the right on all social issues, and then campaigned for President the last time as way right on both economic and social issues. I was reading the transcript of his Meet the Press interview from 2007 and the squirming was palpable. With the primaries shaping up to be him vs. the wingnuts, he's going to end up in a box he can't get out of.

[Crane]

Electability is a judgement. When I first heard that Reagan was entering politics I did not consider him electable.

Palin is as 'electable' as GW Bush was in 2000.

You are correct that I view the Republican nomination as an alternative to electability, but Palin actually has a fair chance. Republicans will not vote for Obama just because they do not like Palin.

Consider the alternatives:

Perry - Less electabile than Palin - Secessionist, medical mandate law, scandal - he's too smart to chance it

Romney - Mormon with too many flip/flops

Pawlenty - Who?

Bachmann - You're kidding!

Cain, Santorum, Johanson, Paul - Political Roadkill

Crane

[Eternalone]

Why do most on here seem to think that Ron Paul has no chance, is crazy, or is "political roadkill" as mentioned in the previous post. Stop listening to the corporate (abc, nbc, fox, cbs, cnn) media about who is or is not "electable". Decide for yourself. Seek the facts from the candidate himself. Watch the interviews, speeches and debates. I can't understand why strong national defense, protection of personal freedoms, a sound monetary policy and a free market economic system where government regulations promote competition, are principles that are unelectable.

If nothing else, please study the history of the Federal Reserve. You will be shocked and amazed that America has allowed itself to live under such a criminal system for so long.

http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/05/ron-paul-2012-epic-consistency-and-truth/

dailypaul.com

ronpaulflix.com

[Crane]

All you say is true - but the guy will never be President of the US.

Shocked - look at our system for funding elections (use the conflict of interest rules for US corporations as your reference) - shocking!

Crane

[Eternalone]

If enough people vote for him, he will be president. If everyone who says the "he can't/won't win" line actually voted for him, he would win in a landslide.

Big corporation pour giant amounts of money into candidates because it buys them favorable legislation from the candidates they help elect. IF we had highly principled/uncorrptable politicians it wouldn't matter how much money companies threw at them. Laws would apply to all, equally, and not advantage the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. That's the huge flaw of humanity....money, status, and power will win out most of the time over what is right for the majority.

[Marley23]

If enough people vote for him, he will be president.
Not many people are going to vote for him.

If everyone who says the "he can't/won't win" line actually voted for him, he would win in a landslide.
That means something like 70 million people think he can't or won't win. Most of them wouldn't vote for him even if they thought he could win. So how is he going to win?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If I had to choose someone in the Republican field or die, it would be Ron Paul...mostly for the legal weed.

[BobLibDem]

Despite what you hear from the Ron Paul Four Year Cicadas, he has a much better chance of getting pregnant than being elected president. For whatever reason, he has a cult following. But seriously, blaming all the problems of the 20th and 21st century on the Federal Reserve is silly, as is the notion of going back to the gold standard. Add in the normal loony-toon libertarian nonsense and fold in an extensive history of racist statements and you have a candidate with no chance whatsoever. But like Harold Stassen and Pat Paulson, he'll run again...and again... as long as he has a pulse.

[Implicit]

If enough people vote for him, he will be president.
Gosh, really? Ron Paul polled at 3% last time, even with Republicans he never made it to 10%. Who exactly is going to vote for him? Even hard line right wingers who like the 'drown the government in a bathtub' rhetoric, still want all their government goodies.

[Crane]

Like I said - roadkill!

Crane

[Recovering Republican]

Electability is a judgement. When I first heard that Reagan was entering politics I did not consider him electable.

Palin is as 'electable' as GW Bush was in 2000.

Reagan and Bush could point to successful runs as governors with fairly substantial accomplishments. Palin quit her job to star on reality TV.

But as I've said, if the economy doesn't get better- soon- the Republicans can nominate the Cheney/C'Thulhu ticket and win.


You are correct that I view the Republican nomination as an alternative to electability, but Palin actually has a fair chance. Republicans will not vote for Obama just because they do not like Palin.

No, they won't. In fact, whoever the GOP nominates is going to get their floor of about 45% of the vote. And Obama will get about 45% of the vote no matter how bad the economy is. The election is going to be made in that 10% who are going to look at their underwater mortgage, their busted 401K and their job that hasn't kept up with inflation and realize Obama hasn't really made things much better. Palin might be one to scare those people off.

[Crane]

Rec,

I was referring to the time before he ran for governor of Calif. He was a failed actor. His wife got the Oscar winning role in Johnny Belinda and he got Bedtime for Bonzo. At that time he was sub-Palin in electability.

I agree that the swing 10% will determine the election.

I live off of my investments. At one time there was some safety in diversification. That all went away in the Bush economic disaster. Since then I have averaged 40% per year gain in the market. I haven't recovered yet but Obama's policies are stabilizing the economy. His policies are moderate, rational and successful.

The economic positions of Republicans today are not policies at all. They are just cliches that pander to the ignorant. Any investor would have to be insane to vote Republican.

Crane

[Eternalone]

Gosh, really? Ron Paul polled at 3% last time, even with Republicans he never made it to 10%. Who exactly is going to vote for him? Even hard line right wingers who like the 'drown the government in a bathtub' rhetoric, still want all their government goodies.

That's exactly the problem! The establishment republicrats are going to drown us in debt and devalue our dollar which will erode our quality of life. The national debt and the unemployment rate have never at these levels at the same time in any of our lifetimes. That's what makes Paul so different, he isn't like any other politician you've ever heard.

But seriously, blaming all the problems of the 20th and 21st century on the Federal Reserve is silly

I'm not blaming ALL problems of the USA on the FED, just most of the big economic ones. The 'boom and bust' cycles are created by the FED putting to much money in the hands of to few (the rich guys of course) to quickly, which causes inflation that can't be reigned in. That hurts the people with the least amount of money the most.

For whatever reason, he has a cult following.

Promoting personal liberty, peace, following the rule of law, and an economic system that doesn't favor the wealthy, politically connected elitists. That's 'whatever' reason. I'm assuming the 'lib' in your name is short for liberal. Shouldn't you be standing for candidates that promote personal freedom? Isn't classic liberalism AGAINST "big brother" government intruding in on your lives? Do you think that Obama actually cares about your right to choose what types of medical treatment you get or even what type of milk you drink, or keep your records and your home protected by government intrusion? The patriot act renewal tears up the 4th amendment, just as Bush did before.

[Chronos]

I can't understand why strong national defense, protection of personal freedoms, a sound monetary policy and a free market economic system where government regulations promote competition, are principles that are unelectable.
They aren't. And if Ron Paul would do a complete 180 on his positions and start supporting those things, then he would be electable. You assume that people think he's crazy because we haven't seen what he actually proposes. To the contrary, that's exactly why we think he's crazy. Unless you're going to claim that the media made up the bit about him wanting to go on the gold standard? Or repealing the Civil Rights Acts?

[QuarkChild]

Despite what you hear from the Ron Paul Four Year Cicadas....
Band name!

Did you make that up? That is the funny thing I've read all week.