EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 9, 2011 12:06:05 GMT -5
Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney. Not the best choices, sure to fail. The elder statesman way of the Republicans spells defeat again.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Aug 9, 2011 13:19:20 GMT -5
Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney. Not the best choices, sure to fail. The elder statesman way of the Republicans spells defeat again. The Barry Goldwater way doesn't have a great track record either. A majority of Americans may be sympathetic to some of the key points of Michelle Bachman (government guided by Christian morality, limited and fiscally sound government) and perhaps a very large minority are pro-life and anti-gay marriage. But in 1964 almost all Americans were anti-communist but emphatically rejected Goldwater because of his intensity. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" was and is not an election winning message. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 9, 2011 13:54:43 GMT -5
New Rasmussen poll: Obama 44%, Perry 39% How many voters can name three issues Rick Perry cares about? As a Perry voter in previous elections, I still see the Govenor as the Fred Thompson of 2012--he looks the part, but could struggle in debates and the scrutiny of a national campaign. Strange as it may seem for some, Texas is not run like the rest of the 49.  Perry has dominated Texas elections largely by financially neutralizing the field before the primary, and the utter lack of an organized Democratic Party since Mark White's tenure as governor in the early 1980s (Ann Richards only got in via a major public gaffe by the favored GOP opponent). He can't expect the competition to fold this time around. For better or worse, it's Romney's race to lose. What are three issues Obama cares about? Jobs, and, um, more jobs. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 9, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
How many voters can name three issues Rick Perry cares about? As a Perry voter in previous elections, I still see the Govenor as the Fred Thompson of 2012--he looks the part, but could struggle in debates and the scrutiny of a national campaign. Strange as it may seem for some, Texas is not run like the rest of the 49. Perry has dominated Texas elections largely by financially neutralizing the field before the primary, and the utter lack of an organized Democratic Party since Mark White's tenure as governor in the early 1980s (Ann Richards only got in via a major public gaffe by the favored GOP opponent). He can't expect the competition to fold this time around. For better or worse, it's Romney's race to lose. What are three issues Obama cares about? Jobs, and, um, more jobs. Quite a few comments from Politico and the Post have mentioned that the Obama administration is now turning to focus on jobs - for something like the seventh time. If you keep on repivoting to focus on jobs, you weren't focused on jobs in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Aug 11, 2011 13:09:18 GMT -5
Interesting read, informative even if a bit slanted. We need more of these types of looks at all candidates for the presidency, Republican and Democratic. Completely agree, and would add that the profile format is much more readable than the interview format (like this one, with "candidate" Rick Perry): thepage.time.com/2011/08/11/he-speaks/__________________________________________ Strange as it may seem for some, Texas is not run like the rest of the 49. That's right: It'll be a cold day in hell before we recognize Missouri! (I know you meant "the other 49," or "the rest of the 50," but I'll take any excuse to post an Abe Simpson quote.) Agree it's Romney's race to lose, but I'm not sure if he qualifies as an "elder statesman," as easyed suggests. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 14, 2011 9:46:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 14, 2011 12:24:41 GMT -5
Pawlenty strikes me as an odd candidate/figure, almost the Republican equivalent of Evan Bayh. There's not a heck of a lot of substance to either, and their seeming reluctance to be vetted always seems to suggest that there's something to find.
That three-way race is fascinating. Given how much Romney wants it, we could see a war of attrition. While I disagree with Perry on many/most/all social issues, there's something to be said for his record on other things.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,912
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 14, 2011 13:22:38 GMT -5
Interesting thought on the Mitt on Meet the Press today--Romney's supporters argue that Romney only need to win the "brackets" of the establishment wing of the party (presumably, that's Huntsman and Gingrich) to be a major contender, while the "Tea Party bracket" is where Perry and Bachmann have to fight through before they can take on Romney. Few one seemed to think Perry and Bachmann have enough national support to both advance together, and one strategist on the show concluded that Perry would be a formidable primary candidate but also a much more vulnerable general election candidate. Chuck Todd noted that any candidate that has been in office 26 years garners a lot of opposition research material, e.g., Perry was the state campaign manager for Al Gore in 1988.
GOP strategist Mike Murphy also brought up an issue that Tom Brokaw alluded to last week--the "McGovern Factor", asking if the Tea Party is following a similar track to the anti-war Democrats of 1968 who tried to purge the establishment wing of the party and its choice of candidate left it vulnerable to a rout in the 1972 election.
Three more names may still enter before the actual caucuses: Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton (who sometimes makes Bachmann look moderate by comparison), and the media catnip that is Sarah Palin. Her innate ability to hover around other candidate events and siphon off attention is either political genius, pure ego, or a healthy dose of both.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Aug 15, 2011 8:31:10 GMT -5
Interesting thought on the Mitt on Meet the Press today--Romney's supporters argue that Romney only need to win the "brackets" of the establishment wing of the party (presumably, that's Huntsman and Gingrich) to be a major contender, while the "Tea Party bracket" is where Perry and Bachmann have to fight through before they can take on Romney. Few one seemed to think Perry and Bachmann have enough national support to both advance together, and one strategist on the show concluded that Perry would be a formidable primary candidate but also a much more vulnerable general election candidate. Chuck Todd noted that any candidate that has been in office 26 years garners a lot of opposition research material, e.g., Perry was the state campaign manager for Al Gore in 1988. GOP strategist Mike Murphy also brought up an issue that Tom Brokaw alluded to last week--the "McGovern Factor", asking if the Tea Party is following a similar track to the anti-war Democrats of 1968 who tried to purge the establishment wing of the party and its choice of candidate left it vulnerable to a rout in the 1972 election. Three more names may still enter before the actual caucuses: Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton (who sometimes makes Bachmann look moderate by comparison), and the media catnip that is Sarah Palin. Her innate ability to hover around other candidate events and siphon off attention is either political genius, pure ego, or a healthy dose of both. I would like for Bolton to enter the race just for the entertainment of him debating Ron Paul on foreign policy. I could see Rudy being the VP ticket mate of Bachmann or Perry |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 15, 2011 8:41:29 GMT -5
Bolton has no organizing capacity - none. Not even a Facebook page.
Rudy collapsed during the last primary. Romney is another candidate from the Northeast whom business likes. And what Rudy's sold himself as being an expert in - national security - nobody cares about.
The one last interesting name for the POTUS race - that really has even a miniscule chance - is Christie. If Perry collapses and Romney continues to do very little, Christie has enough name recognition and enough ties to New York money to run for at least a few months.
For VP candidate, still betting on Rubio. Bachmann or McDonnell seem like good second-tiers. Jan Brewer (if Republicans think that immigration can win) or Nikki Haley are longshots.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 15, 2011 8:51:44 GMT -5
Why would Haley be considered a longshot?
I think she's being mentioned fairly prominently. Not quite so much as Marco Rubio, but a lot more than Bob McDonnell.*
I think she'd be a very good selection.
Also, she's hot!
(*EDIT: posted before I saw today's Politico piece on McDonnell)
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 15, 2011 9:42:08 GMT -5
Haley has all of 7 months relevant experience. (No way I'm counting time served in a part time state house as relevant to the presidency of the United States.) I'm constantly astounded how easily Americans (right and left) get past the whole "not remotely qualified yet" issue and seem inclined to elevate some hot new talent up about a dozen levels on the super fast track. We get puppy love with new outsider candidates too often for a supposedly mature democracy. It is a little embarrassing frankly. As far as I can tell being somewhat pretty and a woman or being well educated and black or young and telegenic but bat$hit crazy religious are far more compelling traits to a lot of Americans these days than having earned the right to govern at the highest possible level.
Do any of you work for big companies where the race for CEO comes down to the cool summer analyst who was a back-up linebacker at Penn State and that cute intern who always wears flip flops around the office? Sometimes I feel like that's how we choose the most Powerful Person in the World.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 15, 2011 10:15:49 GMT -5
bin, I think you missed the part where I said she is hot!
;D
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 15, 2011 10:25:13 GMT -5
bin, I think you missed the part where I said she is hot! ;D I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one too my friend. |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Aug 15, 2011 11:43:26 GMT -5
As far as I can tell being somewhat pretty and a woman or being well educated and black or young and telegenic but bat$hit crazy religious are far more compelling traits to a lot of Americans these days than having earned the right to govern at the highest possible level. Out of curiosity, which of these attributes best describes Ron Paul? The people who are best qualified to be our nation's chief executive will always tend to be both more boring and less ideologically pure than those who will actually win. The media emphasis on the horse race only exacerbates the problem, since really, only the barely employed (cough, legislators and ex-politicians, cough) have the leisure time to screw around generating pseudo-content to feed the beast/be the rock star on a daily basis. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 15, 2011 11:49:19 GMT -5
Haley has all of 7 months relevant experience. (No way I'm counting time served in a part time state house as relevant to the presidency of the United States.) I'm constantly astounded how easily Americans (right and left) get past the whole "not remotely qualified yet" issue and seem inclined to elevate some hot new talent up about a dozen levels on the super fast track. We get puppy love with new outsider candidates too often for a supposedly mature democracy. It is a little embarrassing frankly. As far as I can tell being somewhat pretty and a woman or being well educated and black or young and telegenic but bat$hit crazy religious are far more compelling traits to a lot of Americans these days than having earned the right to govern at the highest possible level. Do any of you work for big companies where the race for CEO comes down to the cool summer analyst who was a back-up linebacker at Penn State and that cute intern who always wears flip flops around the office? Sometimes I feel like that's how we choose the most Powerful Person in the World. Just for the record, Dan Quayle kind of qualified as someone who was young and inexperienced (he was kind of chosen to bring some youth to a ticket featuring Bush, who looked old). I hate to sound crass, but it's possible that nominating a Hispanic could help the GOP combat assertions that it's not an inclusive party, the same way nominating an Asian would. It's not the right way to run a railroad (see the Post's asinine comments about the supercommittee not having enough diversity), but politics is all about the right person for the right moment. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Aug 15, 2011 12:08:39 GMT -5
I hate to sound crass, but it's possible that nominating a Hispanic could help the GOP combat assertions that it's not an inclusive party, the same way nominating an Asian would. It's not the right way to run a railroad (see the Post's asinine comments about the supercommittee not having enough diversity), but politics is all about the right person for the right moment. I'll take Rubio for $10 as the VP candidate for the GOP regardless of who is on the top and give you the field and 2:1 odds. Partially the hispanic angle and partially the take FL angle. If Romney is the top of the ticket I will give you 3:1 odds given his need to keep the right wing of the party energized. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 16, 2011 8:16:17 GMT -5
"Just for the record, Dan Quayle kind of qualified as someone who was young and inexperienced..." Would totally agree he would fit into the group of non-serious candidates I am talking about. Of course it is a magnitude of order less disturbing when it is the VP slot in question, but it is still important. Which is why McCain's selection of Palin pushed me as close to the edge as possible of not voting for him. But increasingly, we seem ready to elevate these non-serious candidates (who may become serious candidates after say a decade or two of high level experience) to the top slot. Our degeneration into a nation of children continues at an alarming rate when we can seriously posit people who have had serious elected positions for only a few years as presidential candidates. Frankly, Bush and Obama had not enough experience for my taste. Palin and Bachmann have maybe half of their experience, and Haley an eighth! They shouldn't even be in the conversation at this point. But ours is a silly celebrity-based culture to the bone. I propose the informal adoption of what I would call the Harriet Miers test for candidates for any very serious office. If you were to ask an objective source to write out a list of the most qualified 100 candidates for an office...is it reasonable to EXPECT that your candidate would be on it? If not, toss them. No Harriet Miers justices, no Palin or Bachman presidential candidates. They might one day make that 100, but until then, it just really embarasses the country that they get so much attention. Again, there is nothing to say that a Palin or Bachmann might not one day EARN their way onto the top 100 qualified hypothetical...but let's make them earn it, huh? Experience may once have been overrated, but it is now fiercely underrated- which is to say in reality experience is now far less important than how they look or how they publically profess to worship. I'm not comfortable with idea of going from summer intern to CEO in a few months. Full disclosure....My inspiration came from this G Will classic. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954.html |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 16, 2011 8:50:49 GMT -5
Yeh, let's take someone like Biden who has lots of experience.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 16, 2011 9:05:46 GMT -5
It simply doesn't follow that because you expect someone in a high position to have a modicum of relevant experience that therefore anyone with a lot of experience will be desirable/effective. Some valid experience is a necessary- not sufficient- baseline. Total non sequitur Ed. And frankly it is the sort of non-nuanced, middle school playground retort that is driving me out of the GOP and firmly into independent territory. It seems to be increasingly the case that partisans (Reps and Dems) talk at each other like children rather than to each other like adults honestly looking to find common ground- a total necessity in a republic. They know this deep down that they are just bickering, but deflect any blame by....blaming the other party for starting it! The two party system is broken beyond repair.
So you don't think it is personal Ed, I hear similar such juvenile retorts from the smartest man I know, who has two degrees from Harvard (including the Med School) and happens to be my dad. I love him to death and he is smarter than I am, but when it comes to political discourse I'm often ashamed to hear how simple and angry he sounds when discussing Obama. Keep in mind this isn't actually a critique of the opinions themselves, which I'm sometimes sympathetic to in varying degrees, but the combative and less than intelligent way in which he argues for them which has become the norm even among the educated in our country.
I'm afraid listening to the right-wing echo-chamber has dulled his brain in matters political and generally made him more miserable than he ought to be. (At this point I feel I have to say there is of course a left-wing echo-chamber retarding the rhetoric on the other side as well.) Its not even a question of whether the opinions are valid or right...you can't even get as far the issues because they are "substantiated," such as it is, in such a juvenile and simplistic manner than makes you forget the substance instantly and marvel at how such an educated man could sound like a child throwign a tantrum. The same happened on the left during the Bushyears constantly....thus you had well-educated people making snarky Halliburton comments that were totally nonsense and borderline hate-groups like Move-On.org and Code Pink going nearly mainstream. They had removed themselves from meaningful discourse (the socialized only with like-minded people) long enough so that they thought it was an adult argument merely to snort 3 word "arguments" as long as "Cheney" or "Bushhitler" or "stolen election" was among them. This deterioration of grown-up discourse as a result of media fragmentation- people largely hear only what they want to hear these days...and you can tell they are not used to hearing both sides when they open their mouth to argue and generally embarrass themselves.
This is the Fox/MSNBC-ification of our polity as well as the self-selecting nature with which Americans increasingly tend to socialize with and live near mostly like-minded people. We rarely, if ever, have to have grown up nuanced discussions with people we respect on the other side, and boy does it sound like it increasingly when you see people barking at each other like animals with moronic skin-deep platitudes posing as nuanced arguments.
|
|
