2012 Presidential Election Thread......

[theexorcist]

May 18, 2011 9:51:30 GMT -5 TC said:

May 18, 2011 9:05:01 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

The major miscalculation that Democrat primary voters made in 2004 was to reject their individually preferred candidates in favor of Kerry based solely upon a surreal projection upon the rest of America that John Kerry would be especially electable in the general election.

Kerry came within 2% of the vote in Ohio of winning the Presidency. Let's do away with the idiotic talk of "surreal projections", and "major miscalculations" - it was a close election, not a 2008 scrubbing.

If anything, Democratic voters were dead-on right that he was electable, and he just came up short.

Pawlenty will never be the nominee. If Pawlenty is the default, then someone else is going to emerge.

George W. Bush in 2004 was an awful candidate! We had invaded Iraq - an unpopular decision, to put it mildly - and hadn't found WMDs. Abu Ghraib had broke. We STILL hadn't found Osama. He was ineffective in the debates and lots of people despised Cheney.

Admittedly, the other cards in that hand - Edwards would have had his affairs found on, Clark had no experience, Dean was a nut - were probably even lower. But W. was eminently beatable.

[hoyainspirit]

May 19, 2011 6:10:35 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

George W. Bush in 2004 was an awful candidate!

And will be remembered as one of the 10 worst presidents in the history of this country.

[TBird41]

I think Douthat has this right:

douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/the-lessons-of-gingrich-v-ryan/

The problem w/ Newt was that he started attacking Ryan w/o an alternative. I'm a big fan of Ryan, but we're going to see more plans come out (I think Toomey had one, and Coburn is going to have one soon) and obviously they'll be conflicts / debate /attacks b/w the plans. However, no one wants to see attacks that are nothing but politics as usual and don't actually advance the debate.

[RBHoya]

Allow me to give you all the spoilers on how this is going to go down. A generic Republican (Pawlenty? Daniels?) will emerge and win the nomination. High unemployment, high gas prices, and a general malaise about the national debt will keep the race close, but ultimately the country decides to stick it out with the controversial guy they already know, and give him 4 more years to prove that his shtick works just like they did in 2004.

In 2016 Chris Christie will run and win.

There, saved you all some time

[AustinHoya03]

Rick Perry buzz picking up:

www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rick-perry-president-20110519,0,4922230.story

www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/19/republicans_christie_perry/

www.star-telegram.com/2011/05/18/3086060/perry-for-president-he-says-no.html

www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/perry-says-white-house-talk-wont-distract-him/

[SSHoya]

The secession Governor??

www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/us/politics/18texas.html

[EasyEd]

This is what he actually said: "Mr. Perry did not actually endorse the idea of Texas’ leaving the Union, but critics say his remarks, after an antitax protest on Wednesday in Austin, came close. Seeking to quell the furor the next day, he told The Associated Press that 'Texas is part of a great Union, and I see no reason for that to change.'” Now the NY Times, of course, puts its spin on it.

[ksf42001]

May 20, 2011 8:05:50 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

This is what he actually said: "Mr. Perry did not actually endorse the idea of Texas’ leaving the Union, but critics say his remarks, after an antitax protest on Wednesday in Austin, came close. Seeking to quell the furor the next day, he told The Associated Press that 'Texas is part of a great Union, and I see no reason for that to change.'” Now the NY Times, of course, puts its spin on it.

He didn't actually endorse the idea of secession, but he didn't rule it out as a possibility down the line either the day before.

[jerseyhoya34]

As I said in November, when you compare Rick Perry against other governors and Texas against other states right now, he compares favorably, and people seem to have some sense for him - however mistaken - at a national level. Perry's advisors seem to have created an image for him nationally as someone who would check all the boxes for the conservative wing of the party. Behind all that is some level of pragmatism - Texas, for example, accepted $6.4 billion of your federal tax dollars on his watch in 2010 to plug a budget shortfall (not $0 as commonly believed but, rather, the very top in the nation). You won't read that in the national media, it seems. This is where Perry gets it absolutely right, and that is more than we can say for most other Republican contenders at this early stage.

[SSHoya]

Was he against the stimulus until he was for it?


Texas Gov. Rick Perry likes to tell Washington to stop meddling in state affairs. He vocally opposed the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus program to spur the economy and assist cash-strapped states. Perry also likes to trumpet that his state balanced its budget in 2009, while keeping billions in its rainy day fund. But he couldn't have done that without a lot of help from ... guess where? Washington. Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

[theexorcist]

It just seems that the articles are journalists bored with things. There's a Draft Christie movement, a Draft Ryan movement ....

Elections are all about money and organization. Anyone who delays announcing risks losing access to money that previous candidates have campaigned for and which has already been committed. Perry also has no infrastructure to speak of in key states. Once again, I gave money to Rudy Giuliani and watched him spend all his money in Florida - by the time Florida rolled around, Rudy was out.

[ksf42001]

Seems like a lot of Republican candidates aren't happy with Obama's Israel speech, but I'm still confused exactly why.

George W Bush on May 25, 2005: "Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to."

Isn't that the EXACT same thing Obama said - pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed to land swaps?

[TBird41]

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/understanding-obamas-shift-on-israel-and-the-1967-lines/2011/05/19/AFPRaT7G_blog.html

"As seen by the reporting at the time, no one thought Bush’s comment was remarkable or significant, in contrast to the reception that Obama’s statement on Thursday received. That’s because it was considered simply a restatement of the 2004 letter — which was considered the most explicit description of U.S. policy. Analysts who are citing this as evidence of little difference between Bush and Obama are deceiving themselves. "

On Edit: Considering how little outcry there was in 2005 (I think Sharon's outcry would have been noticed by everyone if he'd thought Bush was calling for the 1949 boundaries), I think Kessler is right. Poor wording in a press conference (especially by Pres. Bush) didn't change the policy he endorsed in 2004 and which the U.S. had followed since 1968), unlike the speech President Obama gave.

[ksf42001]

May 21, 2011 9:30:53 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/understanding-obamas-shift-on-israel-and-the-1967-lines/2011/05/19/AFPRaT7G_blog.html

"As seen by the reporting at the time, no one thought Bush’s comment was remarkable or significant, in contrast to the reception that Obama’s statement on Thursday received. That’s because it was considered simply a restatement of the 2004 letter — which was considered the most explicit description of U.S. policy. Analysts who are citing this as evidence of little difference between Bush and Obama are deceiving themselves. "

On Edit: Considering how little outcry there was in 2005 (I think Sharon's outcry would have been noticed by everyone if he'd thought Bush was calling for the 1949 boundaries), I think Kessler is right. Poor wording in a press conference (especially by Pres. Bush) didn't change the policy he endorsed in 2004 and which the U.S. had followed since 1968), unlike the speech President Obama gave.

Bush's 2005 comments don't conflict with his 2004 letter. In 2004, he stated that the final agreed to borders can't be the 1949 lines. In 2005, Bush said that the 1949 lines won't be the final lines after negotiation, since there would be land swaps. This week, Obama never said that the 1949 lines should be the final lines after negotiation, since there would be land swaps.

The 2005 comments actually did make a stir, but only by the people it should: the crazies. Here's an example:

www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44552

Unfortunately, the crazies are a lot louder and widespread six years later, so republicans have to play to them if they want to get nominated.

Sharon didn't make a sound then, because he had no reason to, since US policy didn't actually change at all. Netanyahu's response seems to be driven more by domestic problems he's dealing with than anything else (like an ultra conservative foreign minister who doesn't follow orders). Also, all he said was that there's no way they can go back to the 1949 lines, but no one actually asked him to in the first place.

Also on a unrelated note: I just realized that Sharon is still alive, which is a sad thought.

[EasyEd]

Netanyahu's reaction was not driven by domestic problems. It was a reaction saying that he violently opposed Obama's stated goal of returning to the 1967 borders. Why can't we stop trying to dictate a solution for Israel who daily is fighting for its very existence?

[SSHoya]

Mitch Daniels out


www.washingtonpost.com/politics/indianas-republican-gov-mitch-daniels-rules-out-run-for-the-white-house/2011/05/22/AFB4ju8G_story.html?hpid=z3

[jerseyhoya34]

The Daniels thing does not surprise me. Most candidates with four more years of political life see the writing on the wall for the Republican contender in 2012 and a lack of achievement to date for the Hill Republicans.

I think the race is Romney's to lose right now.

[EasyEd]

Let's list the achievements during the Obama administration: Health Care Reform followed by many exemptions, Bin Laden killed, huge increase in national debt, $4 a gallon gasoline, meagre recovery from recession, Iraq War still going, Afghanistan War expanded, new conflict in Libya, Guantanamo still open, Bush tax cuts extended, halt to Gulf drilling with devastating effects on Gulf economy, increased dependence on foreign oil, 8.8% unemployment, prosecuting some involved in enhanced interrogation techniques, continued infiltration of our borders, Iran getting nuclear weapons, North Korea continued expansion of missile and nuclear arms, alienation of Israel, 6,000 Obama/teleprompter speeches..........

If a Republican can't develop a winning campaign attacking Obama's record, he/she deserves to lose.

[Boz]

sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6575570

Maybe Ray Lewis should run for President.

He already has mastered the politics of fear.

;D


As for the rest of the conversation, well, I just got a text from 1991, telling me how George Bush was sitting pretty with ridiculously high approval numbers after a big foreign policy victory, unemployment was under 8%, and the Democrats had no serious candidates to challenge him according to most of the media. Man, that was a cakewalk of a Presidential election.

Somehow though, I can't seem to remember much about Bush's second term. What happened with that?

[theexorcist]

Did you text 1991 back about Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, and 9/11, and the China and Haiti and Japan earthquakes and the Pakistan floods?