Republican 2012 primary candidates

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Sun May 22, 2011 4:45 pm

With Mitch Daniels out, GOP looking for new 2012 option

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55425.html

article wrote:Mitch Daniels’s overnight decision against a presidential bid will immediately raise the volume on the low-hum grumbling among Republican insiders that they’re gearing up to face President Obama with the weakest primary field in recent memory.

Consider the list of would-be candidates who’ve passed on a campaign in the last four months: Mike Pence, John Thune, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump and now Daniels.

Add Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and Rick Perry – Republicans with star power who’ve said flatly they won’t run – and it translates into a GOP establishment deeply worried that the flawed options they’re left with won’t be any match for an incumbent president who seemingly won’t face a primary but is likely to shatter campaign fundraising records.

Given the field of potential choices that are left, who do you think the strongest Republican challenge to Obama would be? Serious answers only, please.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun May 22, 2011 8:20 pm

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun May 22, 2011 11:00 pm

MITT ROMNEY - Who complains that Obamacare, (which is a requirement for all states) is bad for the nation, but somehow his Romneycare (which is a requirement for HIS state) is ok because we need more sense like that.

So, that leaves Sarah Palin as the only serious contender because the U.S. is full of the same republicans who believe that she's always been qualified and does exemplify family values despite what's going on with Bristol and may choose Newt or Mitt as a running mate.

Thats interesting, because I would have listed SP as the least likely to run, let alone win. She left her position as governer, I would think that is almost game over when it comes to seeking higher office. Her motives dont much matter, it would be too easy for the DNC to make that the issue. My respect for her would increase if she ran though, but Im pretty sure her primary goal was always name recognition. She has that now, so she isn't going to run. That I would bet on.

Mitt, to be honest, would be refreshing in my eyes. He strikes me as a genuine family man and a smart business man. Both of which would be so nice to see in the republican party. But I don't think evangelicals are ready to elect a Morman.

Newt, I agree, he is done.

Tim Palenty I think has a decent shot, if I was a betting man that is where my money would be. But I don't think he pumps up the base on social issues. But I just don't see who can take Obama right now.

Glad huckabee and Donald got out.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun May 22, 2011 11:15 pm

Ron Paul is the most solid candidate. Whether conservatives will forgive some of his extreme positions in favor of the fact that he is twice as qualified as any of the pretty faces in the Republican primary with more or less exemplary moral compasses remains to be seen. Ron Paul has an understanding of American government that is unmatched on the Republican side, from what I've seen. Also it would be refreshing to listen to a president who doesn't lie every time he speaks. I think a Ron Paul presidency, whether it ends up being 100% positive or not (legalize drugs?), is what this country needs.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun May 22, 2011 11:16 pm

I was really excited about RP in 2008, watched alot of his speeches, I do respect the guy.

But he is not a serious condendor for the Republican nomination. The machine hates him too much.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Mon May 23, 2011 2:08 am

It is still early- but nobody has really impressed me yet.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon May 23, 2011 4:18 am

Well, if the election were held today, I would vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson over Obama, but I can't see myself voting for a social conservative.

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Mon May 23, 2011 7:26 am

Has any one heard of Herman Cain?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon May 23, 2011 7:34 am

Cain has no political experience but has quite possibly better oratory skills than Obama. Right now is way too early to say who I would like until I hear them in debates. It will be a interesting election cycle this time around. The real race will be for the senate seats that will be up for grabs in 2012.

While I still like Sarah Palin, I'd still have to see how she'd hold up on the campaign trail. Michelle Bachman is another female I'd keep a eye on if she decides to run. A real female dark horse would be Condolezza Rice. If she decides to run I think she may very well be the strongest best credentialed candidate the republicans could field.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Mon May 23, 2011 10:18 am

I think the two strongest contenders in a general election are Tim Pawlenty and John Huntsman. Unfortunately I also think they are the two candidates least likely to win the primary. They don't scream enough about the evils of social practices and they don't publicly deride science and technology. They are too sane for the Republican base, which is a real shame, because if it came to a general election between one of them and Barack Obama, I'd have a tough time deciding who to vote for. Putting one of the GOP's nutcases in a general election like Mitt Romney (currently pulling a McCain, which is a real damn shame because prior to this sudden disavowing of everything he'd done as Massachusetts governor, I actually quite liked him and his policies), Ron Paul, or Rick Santorum makes it no contest in my mind, and likely in the minds of many other moderate voters as well.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon May 23, 2011 2:33 pm

woodchip wrote:Cain has no political experience but has quite possibly better oratory skills than Obama. Right now is way too early to say who I would like until I hear them in debates. It will be a interesting election cycle this time around. The real race will be for the senate seats that will be up for grabs in 2012.

While I still like Sarah Palin, I'd still have to see how she'd hold up on the campaign trail. Michelle Bachman is another female I'd keep a eye on if she decides to run. A real female dark horse would be Condolezza Rice. If she decides to run I think she may very well be the strongest best credentialed candidate the republicans could field.

Rice is smart and smooth and may give Obama a run for his money, but Bachmann is an absolutely crazy birdbrain and would only appeal to Tea Party voters. But look out Mrs. Palin, you've pissed of so many people close to you that the smell is starting to get a little ripe (thank God, she'd be a disaster for our country).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110523/ap_ ... palin_book

I just heard in the news that Palin has bought a house in Arizona. Maybe she's going to run for McCain's Senate seat first and then run for pres in 2016 if she makes it into the Senate (I hope the hell not).

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/sarah-pa ... senate-run

Don't count out John Huntsman as well, and Cain does have good oratory skills, a plus in any debates with a hem and hawer like Obama.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon May 23, 2011 5:22 pm

Are we talking politics here, null, or fantasy football?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon May 23, 2011 8:13 pm

Heretic wrote:Has any one heard of Herman Cain?

My first response was "didn't you guys learn your lesson from Michael Steele?"

But then I youtubed his foxnews sunday (only good show on FNC), and he wasn't that bad. He Sarah Palined some questions on the return and Isrial, but it is still quite early.

I don't see him beating Obama though. Condy Rice was thrown out there, I think that is someone who could beat Obama, but my gut feeling is that she respects what he means too much to run against him.

$0.02

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat May 28, 2011 11:24 am

As I stated in another thread, I am convinced that we will see, over the next few months, two scenarios play out: Some plausible candidates(examples, Romney, Giuliani, Gingrich) will get ground into pulp by the core GOP electorate. Other such candidates(Barbour, Daniels) will read the political and fundraising tea leaves and leave the horses in the barn. The result will be some fringe ideolgical purist as a Presidential candidate, who will in due course get absolutely hammered by Obama.
It will be fascinating to watch the Congressional candidates reacting to this situation......

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat May 28, 2011 12:54 pm

Nice try slick. I predict the economy double dips and gas prices stay high. Obama care starts throwing grannie to the death panels and everyone goes into shock when they start have to buy $50.00 light bulbs. Obama would be hammered and beat by even the likes of Joe the Plumber.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Sat May 28, 2011 1:47 pm

woodchip wrote:Nice try slick. I predict the economy double dips and gas prices stay high. Obama care starts throwing grannie to the death panels and everyone goes into shock when they start have to buy $50.00 light bulbs. Obama would be hammered and beat by even the likes of Joe the Plumber.

Why would the economy double-dip?

Why would Obama throw "grannie" to the "death panels?"

Where can I buy a $50.00 light bulb?

Is Joe a licensed plumber?

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat May 28, 2011 1:53 pm

What do you want on your tombstone?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat May 28, 2011 2:21 pm

LED Light Bulbs

I also believe the economy will double-dip.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:LED Light Bulbs

item description wrote:Saves $97 in energy costs
Designed to last up to 15 years*. Offers superior life and low energy consumption.
Replaces a 50 watt halogen PAR30 bulb, with same size and shape, and rugged design. Ideal for recessed and track lighting.
Instant on. Both mercury and lead free construction.
Emits virtually no heat and will not fade colors

Why wouldn't you want to pay 50 dollars for a lightbulb that pays for its own energy costs relative to traditional incandescent bulbs and will last up to 15 years? That's a much better deal than incandescent. I certainly don't support "banning" incandescent bulbs but I have to wonder why people keep buying them. I think I might buy these LED bulbs if they'll fit into standard sockets.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I also believe the economy will double-dip.

Why?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sat May 28, 2011 2:46 pm

Simply because I don't believe we haven't seen the worst yet, and everyone's trying hard to make us believe the worst is over for no reason other than that it is profitable or beneficial for them to do so.

Edit:
I'm interested in LED light bulbs as well (yes they work in standard light bulb sockets). However the fact that they'll pay for themselves in a number of years is not necessarily a good reason for a person on a monthly budget to buy them. I priced them recently for some track lighting that I'm putting in, and I've pretty much decided to go halogen, as much as I like the concept of LED.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Sat May 28, 2011 3:00 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Simply because I don't believe we haven't seen the worst yet, and everyone's trying hard to make us believe the worst is over for no reason other than that it is profitable or beneficial for them to do so.

I don't think that's enough of a reason to believe that the economy will suddenly fall through the floor.

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Sat May 28, 2011 3:04 pm

Top Gun wrote:What do you want on your tombstone?

Sausage and Pepperoni

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat May 28, 2011 4:09 pm

null0010 wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:Simply because I don't believe we haven't seen the worst yet, and everyone's trying hard to make us believe the worst is over for no reason other than that it is profitable or beneficial for them to do so.
I don't think that's enough of a reason to believe that the economy will suddenly fall through the floor.

Why do you think it WON'T double dip?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat May 28, 2011 4:24 pm

woodchip wrote:Nice try slick. I predict the economy double dips and gas prices stay high. Obama care starts throwing grannie to the death panels and everyone goes into shock when they start have to buy $50.00 light bulbs. Obama would be hammered and beat by even the likes of Joe the Plumber.

uh-huh......

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat May 28, 2011 4:25 pm

Heretic wrote:
Top Gun wrote:What do you want on your tombstone?
Sausage and Pepperoni

ooooh, bad.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Sat May 28, 2011 4:27 pm

woodchip wrote:
null0010 wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:Simply because I don't believe we haven't seen the worst yet, and everyone's trying hard to make us believe the worst is over for no reason other than that it is profitable or beneficial for them to do so.
I don't think that's enough of a reason to believe that the economy will suddenly fall through the floor.
Why do you think it WON'T double dip?

Because I haven't seen or read of anyone who has seen any credible evidence suggesting that it will do so.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat May 28, 2011 4:37 pm

I personally think there is a possibility of a double dip if the housing market fails to recover soon. And after the abysmal attempt by the current administration to deal with the problem, I don’t hold much hope. We seem to be in the perfect storm, of economic disaster. (pun intended, as we are in the eye)

But, that’s only the pessimistic side of me talking.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun May 29, 2011 5:16 am

Spidey wrote:I personally think there is a possibility of a double dip if the housing market fails to recover soon. And after the abysmal attempt by the current administration to deal with the problem, I don’t hold much hope. We seem to be in the perfect storm, of economic disaster. (pun intended, as we are in the eye)

But, that’s only the pessimistic side of me talking.

the housing market has been pretty well factored in, at least on the side of the money folks. What might cause further issues is the matter of commercial real estate. That too, has been factored in by most lenders, and is actually every bit as big a write-off as residential. Fact is, we built too many buildings of all sorts and now have far more than we reasonably need. Those things said, I see no reason that the mechanics aren't in place to continue recovery at a slow, steady pace. However, if we do not heed those who point out the glaring need for infrastructure, research and alternative energy investment on a national level, 'recovery' for a lot of people is still going to suck.......

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun May 29, 2011 6:02 am

Honestly, Clinton was a good president who got his dick sucked in the oval office. Honestly who could resist that?

Seems I remember that there was a surplus projected when Clinton left office, which was immediately destroyed by the next administration. We need more business men and less idealists in office. People who can assess the current situation and then deal with it sensibly, and not with their own impossible, it would be great if it was like this ideals. It's not by the way. It's totally screwed and ideals will not help, only a real look at the situation and maybe some compromise's to get back on track of normalcy.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun May 29, 2011 8:09 am

flip wrote:Honestly, Clinton was a good president who got his dick sucked in the oval office. Honestly who could resist that? Seems I remember that there was a surplus projected when Clinton left office, which was immediately destroyed by the next administration. ...

"projected" would be the key word there. I know the left has always suggested Bush spent all those billions that represent the surplus on tax cuts for the rich but those tax cuts for that group didn't even go into effect until a year or two after they were passed. The lower class cuts came first.
There were beginnings of a recession already noted by the Clinton administrations own accounting but the numbers were massaged to help Gore's chances.
But ultimately there was only a projection...never any revenue received for Bush to have spent. Not that he and congress didn't spend anyway but you can't, or shouldn't in the interest of accuracy, add to his bill the amount that could have been in the coffers when it never was!

The dot com bubble bursting and the beginning of the housing market drop which California saw first killed off any reason to keep reporting a projected surplus....well, any reason other than political motivation anyway.

null0010 · Post by **null0010** » Sun May 29, 2011 10:12 am

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/d ... deral.html

article wrote:Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

More info.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun May 29, 2011 11:05 am

Slick, I only used the housing market as my example…I also used the term “perfect storm” because there are also many other factors. Many projections over the last year of so have been based on the market reaching a bottom but the housing market is still going down, and foreclosures are still out of control.

Other factors:

The credit crisis (banks are still not lending)
Personal credit over maxed
Inept/inactive government
Anemic job market
National dept/deficit
Inflation (mostly energy based)
And more…

The double dip is only a guess…but I’m pretty sure we are in for a long and painful recovery, maybe the longest in modern history. Sure the stock market has recovered…but that is just fake money…not real wealth, as anybody who lost a bundle overnight can attest to.

I’m not even sure we will ever make it back to full employment, based on the new world market environment.

“I see no reason that the mechanics aren't in place to continue recovery at a slow, steady pace.”

Elaborate please…

………………….

As far as all of that wonderful stuff under Clinton…my guess is most of it was just very clever bookkeeping.

........................

Oh, and infrastructure…don’t get me started on infrastructure…

Infrastructure should have its own budget, and be done on an ongoing basis, but instead we play this stupid game.

“Hey people are out of work, I guess it’s time to go into debt and fix some roads”.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun May 29, 2011 12:05 pm

I think the projection of surplus was set under the condition of moving in the same direction. If that had happened, maybe there would be a surplus now. I guess by now everyone realizes I don't like none of those sob's, but, in an imperfect world, Clinton was the man for the job. I think he realized where we were heading,( hell the only ones that dont seem to is the general public), and put us in a good position. At that time. Idealists have no place in politics.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun May 29, 2011 12:15 pm

Below I'll quote from a very anti-Bush article..written by the Chairman of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers during that period. You will see he mentions the turn down started before Bush had any effect on the economy ie; tax cuts or war.
And he mentions the way key players were misleading themselves, the stock market, Greenspan, etc. based on the projections instead of signs the bubble was already bursting as well as what he describes as 'Clintons relentless drive to eliminate the deficit'.

Make no mistake Bush spent like a fool, the same signs Clinton saw on his way out were there for Bush to see as well. So I'm not trying to say Clinton wrecked it and left it to Bush to fix. that would be very much like an Obama excuse wouldn't it?
What I said was the projection wasn't there to spend it wasn't revenue so the "loss" of the dollar amount that the projection represents can not, in good faith, be attributed to the total that Bush spent. He never had it to spend.

Remember the Surplus?
The world was a very different place, economically speaking, when George W. Bush took office, in January 2001. During the Roaring 90s, many had believed that the Internet would transform everything. Productivity gains, which had averaged about 1.5 percent a year from the early 1970s through the early 90s, now approached 3 percent. During Bill Clinton’s second term, gains in manufacturing productivity sometimes even surpassed 6 percent. The Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, spoke of a New Economy marked by continued productivity gains as the Internet buried the old ways of doing business. Others went so far as to predict an end to the business cycle. Greenspan worried aloud about how he’d ever be able to manage monetary policy once the nation’s debt was fully paid off.

This tremendous confidence took the Dow Jones index higher and higher. The rich did well, but so did the not-so-rich and even the downright poor. The Clinton years were not an economic Nirvana; as chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers during part of this time, I’m all too aware of mistakes and lost opportunities. The global-trade agreements we pushed through were often unfair to developing countries. We should have invested more in infrastructure, tightened regulation of the securities markets, and taken additional steps to promote energy conservation. We fell short because of politics and lack of money—and also, frankly, because special interests sometimes shaped the agenda more than they should have. But these boom years were the first time since Jimmy Carter that the deficit was under control. And they were the first time since the 1970s that incomes at the bottom grew faster than those at the top—a benchmark worth celebrating.

By the time George W. Bush was sworn in, parts of this bright picture had begun to dim. The tech boom was over. The nasdaq fell 15 percent in the single month of April 2000, and no one knew for sure what effect the collapse of the Internet bubble would have on the real economy. It was a moment ripe for Keynesian economics, a time to prime the pump by spending more money on education, technology, and infrastructure—all of which America desperately needed, and still does, but which the Clinton administration had postponed in its relentless drive to eliminate the deficit. Bill Clinton had left President Bush in an ideal position to pursue such policies. Remember the presidential debates in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush, and how the two men argued over how to spend America’s anticipated $2.2 trillion budget surplus? The country could well have afforded to ramp up domestic investment in key areas. In fact, doing so would have staved off recession in the short run while spurring growth in the long run.

Here's a little aside for you:
If you want to pretend the bubble projection was an asset and Bush spent X and X was too too much even considering the optimistic bubble outlook....then what were the numbers when Obama came in and how many multiples of X has he spent when looking at, by comparison, an absolutely horrible outlook that evil Bush left him?!?!?
You should be careful just how you declare what is and what should never be unless you don't intend on applying your standards this time around....

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun May 29, 2011 12:27 pm

Well, see if your going into a world economy and world government, then a "relentless effort to reduce the deficit" is exactly where you want to be when the transition happens. Not trillions of dollars in debt which will ensure that we will be slaves to the lender. Education, infrastructure and anything else should have come second.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun May 29, 2011 12:28 pm

flip wrote:Well, see if your going into a world economy and world government, then a "relentless effort to reduce the deficit" is exactly where you want to be when the transition happens. Not trillions of dollars in debt which will ensure that we will be slaves to the lender. Education, infrastructure and anything else should have come second.

You have no idea how many times I've wished Clinton, who I hated at the time, was still there for a third and fourth and now fifth term. Hind site makes me brilliant lol.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun May 29, 2011 5:51 pm

Spidey wrote:Slick, I only used the housing market as my example…I also used the term “perfect storm” because there are also many other factors. Many projections over the last year of so have been based on the market reaching a bottom but the housing market is still going down, and foreclosures are still out of control.

actually, you are just seeing a predicatable paperwork lag. The losses have long since been written off and paid down. As for your 'other factors':

The credit crisis (banks are still not lending)

wrong. They simply aren't lending to anyone without AAA credit. A bit constricted, but a logical use of capital when investments are so safely profitable.

Personal credit over maxed

wrong, again. Personal debt has dropped over the past two years and is at a much lower rate. Secondly, just try and get a decent line of credit on a card with a score under 775.

Inept/inactive government

tell me when we haven't survived the above, historically. Hell, we survived the Harding administration and Ullysses Grant, what is even comparable in the present time?

Anemic job market

with globalization, and an increasingly anti-intellectual populace unwilling to either sacrifice or invest in the future, you expect otherwise? The economy will rebound and this nation will still have an 'anemic job market'. Them's the facts, man.

National dept/deficit

well, we came out of the 1950's with much worse of both. Then again, we had a populace intelligent enough to make the most of the situation.

Sure the stock market has recovered…but that is just fake money…not real wealth, as anybody who lost a bundle overnight can attest to.

silly ignorance here. Sorry, bunky, but it IS real money. And, those that lost money overnight were either greedy, stupid, or both.

“I see no reason that the mechanics aren't in place to continue recovery at a slow, steady pace.”

Elaborate please…

we still have large amounts of investment capital. Our corporations are strong, export market is expanding, and productivity spectacular in some industries. We are still the agricultural engine of the planet and have a fairly educated populace(although getting hammered by other hungrier nations). We have a decent supply of some key resources, notably natural gas and water. Overall, not a completely bleak situation, but the bulk of the population might not be bright enough, focused enough or disciplined enough to benefit.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun May 29, 2011 6:20 pm

Those things you cite have always been part of the strengths of this country, are you trying to say we can live off our laurels forever…hell I was hoping for something better, maybe even something partisan…like Obama is a fackin genius who will lead this country to new highs.

No, I think we need some new strategies to go with the old staples.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:42 pm

I seriously doubt we'll see a double-dip recession.

I also doubt we'll see any decent GOP candidates this time around, which is kind of sad. The door is wide open for someone a little out of the GOP mainstream to hammer Obama.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:09 pm

With the economic news I just heard tonight, we won’t need a double dip…we are just going to enjoy this condition for a long long time.

In other words, first you have to get out of a slump, before you can get into another one.