who's the 2012 republican nominee frontrunner ??

[cougarjake13]

cant be mc cain again

he prob wont even be alive




mitt romney ??

guiliani ??

unknown ??

[K.C.]

Norm Coleman if he wins tonight.

Otherwise, they'd be better off running one of the few moderates they have left like Mike Castle, and grooming someone for 2016.

The Republican Party is in shambles.

[JerseySean]

Haley Barbour

[JerseySean]

Norm Coleman if he wins tonight.

Otherwise, they'd be better off running one of the few moderates they have left like Mike Castle, and grooming someone for 2016.

The Republican Party is in shambles.

Mike Castle? Stop it....just stop it

[K.C.]

Mike Castle? Stop it....just stop it

That's what they need.

Can they dig up Christie Whitman?

Maybe Susan Collins or that other chick from Maine?

They need one of the RINOs.

[JerseySean]

That's what they need.

Can they dig up Christie Whitman?

Maybe Susan Collins or that other chick from Maine?

They need one of the RINOs.

I hate that term, but no. They need a strong political entity, none of those are that. It will be Haley Barbour or Jeb Bush, throw Jindal in as well, but I doubt he'll survive politically in Louisiana

[cougarjake13]

I hate that term, but no. They need a strong political entity, none of those are that. It will be Haley Barbour or Jeb Bush, throw Jindal in as well, but I doubt he'll survive politically in Louisiana



jeb bush has no shot in hell

guilt by association

[PapaBear]

Unknown person. Or maybe Hillary.

[King Hippos Bandaid]

who cares

back to the drawing board

[K.C.]

I hate that term, but no. They need a strong political entity, none of those are that. It will be Haley Barbour or Jeb Bush, throw Jindal in as well, but I doubt he'll survive politically in Louisiana

They're not going to win with a conventional candidate, barring the Obama presidency being a major abortion.

This is a sea change election.

The ramifications won't go away in one term.

[JerseySean]

jeb bush has no shot in hell

guilt by association

Watch, if Jeb goes for it, hes got it. He will put together a machine and he is one of those politicians with a brilliant record and who is 100x smarter than his brother or father.

[Fallon]

Tim Calhoun.

[JerseySean]

They're not going to win with a conventional candidate, barring the Obama presidency being a major abortion.

This is a sea change election.

The ramifications won't be go away in one term.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:-PkL-eHg85bgdM:http://truthalliance.net/Portals/0/Archive/Community%2520Article%2520Images/405px-Jimmy_Carter.jpg

[underdog]

I keep hearing and seeing people say Palin will run, but I think all those people are retarded. Why would the republicans ever even think about throwing her out after this debacle?

[cougarjake13]

Watch, if Jeb goes for it, hes got it. He will put together a machine and he is one of those politicians with a brilliant record and who is 100x smarter than his brother or father.



yeh i know

he was a great governor here


i just dont see how he can over come the last name thing


even if obama is horrible the next 4 years people will still have gw bush bad taste in ther mouth

[underdog]

Watch, if Jeb goes for it, hes got it. He will put together a machine and he is one of those politicians with a brilliant record and who is 100x smarter than his brother or father.

What?

You know how bad Obama will have to be in the next 4 years for people to forget a 1 term father and a brother who ruined a country?

[K.C.]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:-PkL-eHg85bgdM:http://truthalliance.net/Portals/0/Archive/Community%2520Article%2520Images/405px-Jimmy_Carter.jpg

Don't see it, man.

[K.C.]

I keep hearing and seeing people say Palin will run, but I think all those people are retarded.

They are.

[lleeder]

Why would the republicans ever even think about throwing her out after this debacle?

Bad uterus.

[Marc with a c]

hopefully michael bloomberg

[cougarjake13]

What?

You know how bad Obama will have to be in the next 4 years for people to forget a 1 term father and a brother who ruined a country?

all those rumors and allegations about obama being a terrorist and muslim, etc would have to be true for them to even think of jeb bush


jeb may run for the nomination but i dont think he has a snowballs chance in hell in getting the nomination

[JerseySean]

yeh i know

he was a great governor here


i just dont see how he can over come the last name thing


even if obama is horrible the next 4 years people will still have gw bush bad taste in ther mouth

I disagree. Obama will never be as popular as he is today. He has total control of congress. We are a center-right country. 2 years will be a bad year for Dems and 4 years from now is in question.

[KnoxHarrington]

I disagree. Obama will never be as popular as he is today. He has total control of congress. We are a center-right country. 2 years will be a bad year for Dems and 4 years from now is in question.

Like the way Obama blew Pennsylvania and Colorado with his comments on the coal industry?

Your political judgments are quite suspect right about now.

[cougarjake13]

I disagree. Obama will never be as popular as he is today. He has total control of congress. We are a center-right country. 2 years will be a bad year for Dems and 4 years from now is in question.

yeh he'll never be as popular but i dont think that will have any thing to do with jeb bush


he'll sadly never live down that last name, no matter how good he may be

[Tenbatsuzen]

hopefully michael bloomberg

Bingo.

[underdog]

I disagree. Obama will never be as popular as he is today. He has total control of congress. We are a center-right country. 2 years will be a bad year for Dems and 4 years from now is in question.

You're the worst board character, ever.

Like the way Obama blew Pennsylvania and Colorado with his comments on the coal industry?

Your political judgments are quite suspect right about now.

He's like that awful psychic they had on the O&A Worst Of today.

[K.C.]

hopefully michael bloomberg

That's actually a pretty good bet.

Could he win New York, though?

Because that would be the key to the whole thing.

[JerseySean]

Like the way Obama blew Pennsylvania and Colorado with his comments on the coal industry?

Your political judgments are quite suspect right about now.

It didnt have time to penetrate. I saw a tracker that put Obama down 4 overnight in PA, 7 west of Harrisberg. It just didnt have time.

[keithy_19]

Um...end of the world? It doesn't really matter.


Fucking Mayans.

[cougarjake13]

That's actually a pretty good bet.

Could he win New York, though?

Because that would be the key to the whole thing.



dont know ive been gone for most if not all of his time there


how good or bad has he been there ??

[Fez4PrezN2008]

Fez4PrezN2012

change it now Mikeyboy!

[A.J.]

Maybe Susan Collins or that other chick from Maine?

I'd be happy with Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe. The only drawback for Snowe is that she's 61. The GOP needs to find someone closer to Obama's age so it doesn't look like they're running another old fart again. Collins is in her early 50s. Bobby Jindal....MAYBE. Or Rep. Adam Putman from Florida as the long-shot down the road.

[Pestz4Evah]

http://www.aqmd.gov/ej/images/Asthma2007/Governor.jpg

[Sinestro]

http://www.aqmd.gov/ej/images/Asthma2007/Governor.jpg

Isn't he a Nazi??

[El Mudo]

Isn't he a Nazi??

And he's not native born, so he constitutionally can't run

[NewYorkDragons80]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if David Petraeus wants the nomination, it's his. The only thing stopping him would be if Obama is overwhelmingly popular in 2011. I think this party dominance is more vulnerable than it's being given credit for. This election had nothing to do with McCain or Palin. This was a referendum on Bush, and even the most independent-minded Senator in the Republican party couldn't save them. What will Obama accomplish in the next 4 years? Can the energy and excitement of 2008 be repeated? Will he let down a base of first-time voters with lofty expectations? Can he repeat success without a Republican strawman to point to? This is *highly* dependent on those factors.

I keep hearing and seeing people say Palin will run, but I think all those people are retarded. Why would the republicans ever even think about throwing her out after this debacle?

Just because she'll lose doesn't mean she won't run.

[K.C.]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if David Petraeus wants the nomination, it's his. The only thing stopping him would be if Obama is overwhelmingly popular in 2011. I think this party dominance is more vulnerable than it's being given credit for. This election had nothing to do with McCain or Palin. This was a referendum on Bush, and even the most independent-minded Senator in the Republican party couldn't save them. What will Obama accomplish in the next 4 years? Can the energy and excitement of 2008 be repeated? Will he let down a base of first-time voters with lofty expectations? Can he repeat success without a Republican strawman to point to? This is *highly* dependent on those factors.

If it's a national security election, maybe.

If it's another economic election, he'd be the next Wesley Clark.

Generals are one-trick ponies these days, and Jeffery Toobin actually pointed out that the candidate with the better war record has lost the last five elections in a row.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Tell Jeffery Toobin that the "better war record" has as much to do with the election as the Redskins' home record before election day.

[K.C.]

Tell Jeffery Toobin that the "better war record" has as much to do with the election as the Redskins' home record before election day.

What the fuck would Petraeus run on other than military experience?

His entire campaign would be about his war record.

[Pitdoc]

CTHULU
2012 !!!!!!!!!

[JerseySean]

What the fuck would Petraeus run on other than military experience?

His entire campaign would be about his war record.

Agreed....the last two elections show, war heros dont win anymore

[Fezticle98]

1. Charlie Crist (you heard it here first)

2. David Petraeus

3. Lindsey Graham

[albo60s]

Paul Ryan

[epo]

Governor Palin is obviously trying to position herself for 12', but I doubt the Republican Party will have any part of it. This little nugget of her overreaching just last night (http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581):

Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request.

I would guess that it would totally depend upon the quality of Obama's first two years. If he's really good...they might have a shitty stable (sort of like the democrats did in 2004). If he blows, then the A team comes out.

I'll stick with Romney in 2012 as he'll make the "economic" candidate.

[NewYorkDragons80]

What the fuck would Petraeus run on other than military experience?

His entire campaign would be about his war record.

First off, watch your language, sir.

Second, he brings leadership and foreign policy experience. Not foreign policy in the sense that he's had a photo-op with the Kuwaiti Army Chief of Staff, rather he's one of the only if not the only Republican who really understands the Middle East in a cultural, linguistic, and yes, even martial sense.

[epo]

Paul Ryan

It's way too early for Paul Ryan on a national stage. He has no national brand at this point and will need to establish himself.

He could however be a rising star in the Republican Party.

[TheMojoPin]

First off, watch your language, sir.

Second, he brings leadership and foreign policy experience. Not foreign policy in the sense that he's had a photo-op with the Kuwaiti Army Chief of Staff, rather he's one of the only if not the only Republican who really understands the Middle East in a cultural, linguistic, and yes, even martial sense.

But like KC points out, that's all he has.

The political climate is not very condusive to generals running for president. I think he could make a very strong VP choice, but he's got next to nothing to run on as prez and will be defined, for better or easily for worse, by Iraq.

As a VP that could allow the Republicans to pick a prez nominee who can be seen as strong domestically, which is likely still going to be the focus 3 years from now.

[MisterSmith]

They need somebody with the same ruthless mindset as Cheney...
CTHULU
2012 !!!!!!!!!

How could you possibly compare Cheney and Cthulu?!?!?!















Cheney is far more evil....

[TheMojoPin]

Flintheart Glomgold.

[El Mudo]

What the fuck would Petraeus run on other than military experience?

His entire campaign would be about his war record.

The man's a genius

Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College—class of 1983.[4] He subsequently earned a M.P.A. degree (1985) and a Ph.D. degree (1987) in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He later served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the U.S. Military Academy and also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University. He has a BS from the U.S. Military Academy—class of 1974—from which he graduated as a distinguished cadet (top 5% of his class).

A poll recently conducted by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines selected Petraeus as one of the world's top 100 public intellectuals.[5] And in April of this year, the Static Line Association named Petraeus as its 2008 Man of the Year.[6] In 2007, Time named Petraeus one of the 100 most influential leaders and revolutionaries of the year as well as one of its four runners up for Time Person of the Year.[7][8] He was also named the second most influential American conservative by The Daily Telegraph[9] as well as The Daily Telegraph's 2007 Man of the Year[10] and "America's most respected soldier" by Der Spiegel in 2008.[11] In 2005, Petraeus was selected as one of America's top leaders by US News and World Report.[12]

I realise most of that second paragraph is meaningless lists/conjecture, but its telling that such a diverse number of publications/intellectuals think so highly of him

Rick Atkinson's book on Iraq, In The Company Of Soldiers is an AMAZING character study of Petraeus and who/what he's about. I highly recommend it. I would vote for him in a heartbeat

[albo60s]

I disagree. Obama will never be as popular as he is today. He has total control of congress. We are a center-right country. 2 years will be a bad year for Dems and 4 years from now is in question.

I agree. 2 years time will be sufficient for the tide to begin turning back. Obama will be a single termer. The foreign gangsters are going to eat him alive. We'll be longing for George Bush before Barak is done.
The economy will falter under his tax increases, the military will be weakened, his polyanna foreign policy. He's going to be a disastor.
We may sink into a depression.
Watch him raid retirement accounts, the credit crisis is not resolved.
He'll also tax inheritances, increase capitol gains, tax health benefits etc.
The fox is loose in the chicken coop!
Tuesday was a black day in American history.

[MisterSmith]

Tom Ridge automatically popped into my head, but I don't know what the rest of the country thinks of him. I believe he still has pretty solid popularity in PA, but his close ties with W and lackluster tenure as Homeland Security Chief may have hamstrung his political career on the national stage.

[TheMojoPin]

The man's a genius



Rick Atkinson's book on Iraq, In The Company Of Soldiers is an AMAZING character study of Petraeus and who/what he's about. I highly recommend it. I would vote for him in a heartbeat

But you have to think of how he can be "sold" to the American public. The electorate by and large wants their candidate to be easily summed up, and Patraeus cannot possibly escape being tagged as "THE GENERAL" and with Iraq, and both are factors that aren't too plus these days to getting someone elected.

Mind you, I'm not trying to trash the guy. Like I said earlier, a Jinal/Patraues ticket would be the kind of thing very appealing to me, and I think Patraeus would be a valuable asset to any president...I just don't think he has a shot at winning unless he achives some level of elected office before running for president. That would be a totally different ballgame.

[Furtherman]

It didnt have time to penetrate.

Spoken like a true far right rapist.

http://www.aqmd.gov/ej/images/Asthma2007/Governor.jpg

Well, it would continue our current Earth timeline that is Demolition Man. I'm having three shells installed next Tuesday.

[TheMojoPin]

I agree. 2 years time will be sufficient for the tide to begin turning back. Obama will be a single termer. The foreign gangsters are going to eat him alive. We'll be longing for George Bush before Barak is done.
The economy will falter under his tax increases, the military will be weakened, his polyanna foreign policy. He's going to be a disastor.
We may sink into a depression.
Watch him raid retirement accounts, the credit crisis is not resolved.
He'll also tax inheritances, increase capitol gains, tax health benefits etc.
The fox is loose in the chicken coop!
Tuesday was a black day in American history.

Absolutely incredible that all of these psychics post here on this one board.

If only they used their powers for good instead of inanity.

If you disagree with the guy's policies, fine. If you hae theories as to why they won't work, spell them out, but these ridiculous delcarations of the future with nothing to back them up are just weak.

[epo]

I agree. 2 years time will be sufficient for the tide to begin turning back. Obama will be a single termer. The foreign gangsters are going to eat him alive. We'll be longing for George Bush before Barak is done.
The economy will falter under his tax increases, the military will be weakened, his polyanna foreign policy. He's going to be a disastor.
We may sink into a depression.
Watch him raid retirement accounts, the credit crisis is not resolved.
He'll also tax inheritances, increase capitol gains, tax health benefits etc.
The fox is loose in the chicken coop!
Tuesday was a black day in American history.

A "Disastor"?

You sir have absolutely nothing but crazy conjecture to back these points. But the good news is that Belling will be on the radio at 40 minutes to tell you exactly what you wanna hear.

[K.C.]

Tom Ridge automatically popped into my head, but I don't know what the rest of the country thinks of him. I believe he still has pretty solid popularity in PA, but his close ties with W and lackluster tenure as Homeland Security Chief may have hamstrung his political career on the national stage.

He would lose PA in a General Election, which is why McCain didn't pick him for VP.

Rendell trumps Ridge in PA politics.

But you're along the right line of thinking.

They need to pick someone from a blue state who can at the very least create the illusion of being moderate.

[epo]

He would lose PA in a General Election, which is why McCain didn't pick him for VP.

Rendell trumps Ridge in PA politics.

But you're along the right line of thinking.

They need to pick someone from a blue state who can at the very least create the illusion of being moderate.

I know what you are saying. A Jindal/Paul Ryan ticket in 2016 could be very formidable as both should be ready by that point.

[MisterSmith]

He would lose PA in a General Election, which is why McCain didn't pick him for VP.

Rendell trumps Ridge in PA politics.

But you're along the right line of thinking.

They need to pick someone from a blue state who can at the very least create the illusion of being moderate.

Yeah, my brain is kind of stuck at the moment; I am having trouble coming up with moderate-leaning Republicans who have any kind of shot. The only one I could come up with offhand is Ridge, and although he is more feaux-moderate than moderate, at least he was able to take PA for 2 terms as Governor (elected to 2 anyway).

[K.C.]

Yeah, my brain is kind of stuck at the moment; I am having trouble coming up with moderate-leaning Republicans who have any kind of shot. The only one I could come up with offhand is Ridge, and although he is more feaux-moderate than moderate, at least he was able to take PA for 2 terms as Governor (elected to 2 anyway).

There's three options on the table, as I see it.

Option #1
Change nothing about the current Republican platform, but focus over the next few years in growing some new candidates..

Specifically target those candidates for the 2016 election.

In the meantime, you take a known quantity (Palin, Romney, or Giuliani) and try and re-run this election, just four years later in 2012. (Similar to what the Democrats did in '84 by running Mondale)

The only chance of winning is probably predicated on severe failure by Obama. If Obama has a successful four years in this scenario, he'll likely win as big, if not bigger than in 2008.


Option #2

Concede that the electorate has now changed, and that you need someone who can run as a moderate.

This would require the Republican Party to abandon many of the more fringe tenants of Social Conservatism, and embrace a more moderate and fiscally responsible economic entity.

It would also make winning Independents back from Obama a key.

The key to this is to find someone who can crack the Northeast or the blue portions of the Midwest (Bloomberg in NYC, Susan Collins in Maine, Olympia Snowe in Maine, Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota)

The key to this election is embracing some of Obama's ideas, but tying him to the most liberal elements of the Senate and saying he's too far to the left to govern.


Option #3

Concede that the current Republican model, in its entirety, is broken, and that the Republican Party needs to build an entirely new base to remain vital in the future.

In this scenario, you allow someone like Ron Paul, who while he probably isn't electable by any means, most would admit that he tapped into something this year that could actually grow a party, that by all accounts is declining.

Basically offer him up as a sacrifice for 2012 and study the election to see what issues resonate, and who the Republican Party can bring into the fold to grow the overall party and make it nationally viable again (as well as adopt the best of his grass root and fundraising techniques)

Then apply what you learn with a more palatable candidate for the entire country in 2016.

It was not the intention of the Democrats in '72, but what they learned from McGovern that year actually helped build certain coalition that carried Carter in '76.



I would probably say Option 2 is the most likely. None of them are pleasant, though. The Republican Party will likely go through a period of adjustment similar to that of the Democrats in the 80s.

[NewYorkDragons80]

But you have to think of how he can be "sold" to the American public. The electorate by and large wants their candidate to be easily summed up, and Patraeus cannot possibly escape being tagged as "THE GENERAL" and with Iraq, and both are factors that aren't too plus these days to getting someone elected.

Mind you, I'm not trying to trash the guy. Like I said earlier, a Jinal/Patraues ticket would be the kind of thing very appealing to me, and I think Patraeus would be a valuable asset to any president...I just don't think he has a shot at winning unless he achives some level of elected office before running for president. That would be a totally different ballgame.
I think you're pretty much right. Where you and me disagree is that I am 95% confident Iraq will continue to improve through 2012. Moreover, Petraeus isn't Bush and doesn't have a voting record, which is an asset. He is a very accomplished, very bright, and very respected general and is therefore apolitical. The link Obama could make between Petraeus and the current administration would be so murky that it wouldn't be worth trying. I also doubt the commander of CENTCOM is gonna settle for second banana. Not that Jindal/Petraeus wouldn't be a strong ticket, but I just don't see that happening. And nobody thinks you're trashing him, sweetie. We all know you're just speaking from a realistic perspective as you see it.

Absolutely incredible that all of these psychics post here on this one board.

If only they used their powers for good instead of inanity.

When I say lol, I mean it in the most literal way possible.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Tom Ridge automatically popped into my head, but I don't know what the rest of the country thinks of him. I believe he still has pretty solid popularity in PA, but his close ties with W and lackluster tenure as Homeland Security Chief may have hamstrung his political career on the national stage.

I don't think Ridge is a good choice and I can't for the life of me see why his name comes up so often. Nevertheless, Homeland Security is a shitty department through and through and was doomed to failure from the start, but I don't think Ridge should take the fall for that. DHS is the one thing I really disagree with McCain on, and I was shocked when he tried to use it as a selling point for his own campaign.

[JerseySean]

I know what you are saying. A Jindal/Paul Ryan ticket in 2016 could be very formidable as both should be ready by that point.

you guys need to stop giving Obama a second term already. I said congrats but calm the fuck down.

[epo]

you guys need to stop giving Obama a second term already. I said congrats but calm the fuck down.

Actually I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that the Republican party has some very good prospects deep on the bench if they allow them the chance to develop.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Actually I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that the Republican party has some very good prospects deep on the bench if they allow them the chance to develop.

There's nothing wrong with saying 2016. We'll see how things pan out, but for now Obama is a force to be reckoned with. I'm taking the ole wait and see on how Obama keeps this coalition together and if he can spin enough plates to keep enough people happy, but it's not presumptuous to say that the Republicans might be thinking about 2016 more than 2012

[JerseySean]

There's nothing wrong with saying 2016. We'll see how things pan out, but for now Obama is a force to be reckoned with. I'm taking the ole wait and see on how Obama keeps this coalition together and if he can spin enough plates to keep enough people happy, but it's not presumptuous to say that the Republicans might be thinking about 2016 more than 2012

Trust me. 2012

[albo60s]

A "Disastor"?

You sir have absolutely nothing but crazy conjecture to back these points. But the good news is that Belling will be on the radio at 40 minutes to tell you exactly what you wanna hear.

I don't listen to Belling but I do read his fine column in the Freeman.
Obama raising taxes isn't conjecture. He needs lots of cash to fund his crazy health plan & wealth redistribution.
I expect immediate improvement from the messiah. Full employment, peace in our time, a chicken in every pot.
No honeymoon as far as Im concerned.

[TheMojoPin]

Trust me.

Why?

[TheMojoPin]

No honeymoon as far as Im concerned.

That's goofy.

[JerseySean]

Why?

Because the Republicans will do all they can when it becomes politically feasible to tear this guy down. Remember where Bush's approvals were at the beginning of 2002. The Dems then tore him down by chipping away. Clinton had a bigger mandate in 1992 and in 1994 the GOP took congress. Political time moves quicker now than ever. The Republicans will go all out for 2012. We will not let this guy turn into Reagan.

[TheMojoPin]

Because the Republicans will do all they can when it becomes politically feasible to tear this guy down. Remember where Bush's approvals were at the beginning of 2002. The Dems then tore him down by chipping away. Clinton had a bigger mandate in 1992 and in 1994 the GOP took congress. Political time moves quicker now than ever. The Republicans will go all out for 2012. We will not let this guy turn into Reagan.

I like how you can definitively say that Obama and the Democrats are going to fail across the board and the Republicans are going to rise like the mighty phoenix.

How did Clinton have a bigger mandate in 1992? He grabbed 43% of the vote and won thanks to Perot drawing off Replublican votes. The stage there was set for the Republicans to be able to take back the legislative branch due to the LACK of a mandate in the election of Clinton.

[Syd]

If anyone thinks Jindal has a hope on the national stage they're insane. Apart from him being a shade darker than your average Republican, he does extremely little to capture independents. Being pro-Creationism is a big no-no, and will continue being a bigger issue as baby boomers age.

Your 2012 nominee frontrunner will LIKELY be someone we haven't heard of. If I had to guess, it would be someone like Jon Huntsman. He has very moderate/independent friendly stances and is someone who I, even as a socialist, could vote for if his policy remains as sound as it has so far. I'd almost start on InTrade if I knew how much support a Mormon could receive in the GOP. Romney had to spend his own money, sure, but the GOP is about to make for a big change soon.

[JerseySean]

:wink:I like how you can definitively say that Obama and the Democrats are going to fail across the board and the Republicans are going to rise like the mighty phoenix.

How did Clinton have a bigger mandate in 1992? He grabbed 43% of the vote and won thanks to Perot drawing off Replublican votes. The stage there was set for the Republicans to be able to take back the legislative branch due to the LACK of a mandate in the election of Clinton.

He beat Bush by the same percentage that Obama beat McCain. I am not saying definitatively. The stage WAS NOT SET for a GOP takeover. The Dems had controlled Congress for 40 years. What I am saying is stop celebrating the rise or death of any ideology as last night did not signify that.

It signified an anger for the last 8 years and the emergance of a charismatic leader. The Republicans are not going to die. They will be a minority party for the next year while they regroup and come up with new ideas and be a counter to the Obama/Dems. If people dont get the fruits from their expectations of the Obama first term and first two years, they will react and with the help of new ideas, the Republicans would have a shot.

It would be like someone calling next year for the Phillies now. Lets see what happens.

[TheMojoPin]

He beat Bush by the same percentage that Obama beat McCain.

That's an intellectually dishonest way to counter what I said, because it completely ignores Perot. The percentage between Bush and CLinton isn't key...it's now much of the national vote both got. Clinton only snatched 43% of the vote. Most of Perot's votes would have likely shifted to Bush if Perot had not won, giving Bush a sizeable win over Clinton, likely even larger than what Obaa achieved over McCain. What that demonstrates is that the country was definitely shifting significantly to the Right in 1992, setting the stage for the takeover of the legislative branch.

I am not saying definitatively.

When you are saying things WILL happen, you are.

The stage WAS NOT SET for a GOP takeover. The Dems had controlled Congress for 40 years.

And the unexpected loss of the White House in 1992 lead to them to mobilize the base on retake the legislative. The voting trends in 1992 showed that the time was ripe to pounce. We are seeing the opposite of that trend right now.

What I am saying is stop celebrating the rise or death of any ideology as last night did not signify that.

It signified an anger for the last 8 years and the emergance of a charismatic leader. The Republicans are not going to die.

Nobody said "they died." What they were clearly dealt was a siginificant body blow across the board and they're reeling. Obama and the Democrats received a mandate tha their party never had under Clinton (with the exception of Clinton's victory in 1996).

They will be a minority party for the next year while they regroup and come up with new ideas and be a counter to the Obama/Dems. If people dont get the fruits from their expectations of the Obama first term and first two years, they will react and with the help of new ideas, the Republicans would have a shot.

Wha the last 8 yeas actually show is that the American public as actually more patient than you're trying to paint them as. Yes, the Democrats can fuck this up in the next two years, but they would have to REALLY fuck it up for the Republicans to be able to make significant gains in the legislative and take back the White House in 2012. Sure, anything can happen...but the disaster you're forseeing isn't likely to happen. Obama and the Democrats don't have to hit a grand slam in the next 2 years to hold onto control.

[cougarjake13]

http://www.aqmd.gov/ej/images/Asthma2007/Governor.jpg

Isn't he a Nazi??



didnt stop the catholics from electing one as a pope

And he's not native born, so he constitutionally can't run


they can always change the constitution, doubt it will happen though

[Recyclerz]

Not that I'm rooting for anyone in this fight, but I agree with NY Dragons & El Mudo that Petraeus could very well be a bigger star in four years than he is now. (Do we know if he's even a Republican though?) With the tactical success of The Surge he is likely to be the only "hero" coming out of the Iraq debacle, just like Andrew Jackson was with the Battle of Nawlins in the War of 1812. As Commander of CentCom he'll be in the news as Obama's guy in the Iraq wind down and the Afghanistan final push. He seems to be extremely intelligent and since the military is the closest thing we have to a real meritocracy in this society he could be the next Colin Powell. Plus he has a name that sounds like a hero in The Iliad.

As to Dragon's last pick, however, the knives are coming out to carve up Palin.

Andrew Sullivan's blog with a clip from Fox News (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/the-odd-truths.html)

Ouch!

[K.C.]

Not that I'm rooting for anyone in this fight, but I agree with NY Dragons & El Mudo that Petraeus could very well be a bigger star in four years than he is now. (Do we know if he's even a Republican though?) With the tactical success of The Surge he is likely to be the only "hero" coming out of the Iraq debacle, just like Andrew Jackson was with the Battle of Nawlins in the War of 1812. As Commander of CentCom he'll be in the news as Obama's guy in the Iraq wind down and the Afghanistan final push. He seems to be extremely intelligent and since the military is the closest thing we have to a real meritocracy in this society he could be the next Colin Powell. Plus he has a name that sounds like a hero in The Iliad.


It would be like the Democrats trying to pick Wesley Clark a few years ago.

Once you get past National Security, there's nothing there.

Petraeus would be a better VP pick for someone, because he could enhance a ticket with his credentials, but he literally has no track record on domestic issues.

I don't know how he would reconcile that.

They need to pick a moderate pro-growth economist (emphasis on the word moderate...none of these staunch Reaganites).

That's their best shot.

[JerseySean]

That's an intellectually dishonest way to counter what I said, because it completely ignores Perot. The percentage between Bush and CLinton isn't key...it's now much of the national vote both got. Clinton only snatched 43% of the vote. Most of Perot's votes would have likely shifted to Bush if Perot had not won, giving Bush a sizeable win over Clinton, likely even larger than what Obaa achieved over McCain. What that demonstrates is that the country was definitely shifting significantly to the Right in 1992, setting the stage for the takeover of the legislative branch.

Please show me one account of that in 1992. Please point me to a source. I am ignorign Perot. Here is one analysis:

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

And Another:

Initially, Perot's return saw the Texas billionaire's numbers stay low, until he was given the opportunity to participate in a trio of unprecedented three-man debates. The race narrowed, as Perot's number's significantly improved as Clinton's number's declined, while Bush's numbers remained more or less the same from earlier in the race [13] as Perot and Bush began to hammer at Clinton on character issues once again.

Lets just attribute that to you being flat out wrong and move on.

When you are saying things WILL happen, you are.

Dude, its the way people talk. The Philllies will not repeat next year.

And the unexpected loss of the White House in 1992 lead to them to mobilize the base on retake the legislative. The voting trends in 1992 showed that the time was ripe to pounce. We are seeing the opposite of that trend right now.


What trends? In 1992 the GOP picked up 9 but that was arrtibuted to redistricting.

Nobody said "they died." What they were clearly dealt was a siginificant body blow across the board and they're reeling. Obama and the Democrats received a mandate tha their party never had under Clinton (with the exception of Clinton's victory in 1996).

Obama has the same mandate as Clinton in 92, please see above.

Wha the last 8 yeas actually show is that the American public as actually more patient than you're trying to paint them as. Yes, the Democrats can fuck this up in the next two years, but they would have to REALLY fuck it up for the Republicans to be able to make significant gains in the legislative and take back the White House in 2012. Sure, anything can happen...but the disaster you're forseeing isn't likely to happen. Obama and the Democrats don't have to hit a grand slam in the next 2 years to hold onto control.

Expectations are through the roof. Please see 1982 house and Senate elections. I agree that nothing is likely one way or the other yet. But we arent dead or even close. We need leaders to emerge, and if they do we will be back quicker than you seem to think. Maybe 2 years.

[patsopinion]

huckabee

with his strong showing, religous background, frankness
the rep are not going to go with the fiscal conservatizm but instead try to go after "man you'd most like to have a drink with" and a modified straight talk express

not going to run at all on economy just purely a moral compass campaign

he relates well to voters and comes of as being very charismatic
but it is very hard to beat an emcumbant

but since he will be running against Biden because Obama will have been assinated by one of the fuckoz, he will be able to run a pretty even campaign; but will loose

[Recyclerz]

It would be like the Democrats trying to pick Wesley Clark a few years ago.

Once you get past National Security, there's nothing there.

Petraeus would be a better VP pick for someone, because he could enhance a ticket with his credentials, but he literally has no track record on domestic issues.

I don't know how he would reconcile that.

They need to pick a moderate pro-growth economist (emphasis on the word moderate...none of these staunch Reaganites).

That's their best shot.

If you assume that success in Afghanistan requires building up the infrastructure and institutions of a civil society he might have more "domestic" success than most governors in a few years. :wink:

Anyway, as a partisan, I hope they pick Tancredo and somebody even more crazy.

[TheMojoPin]

Please show me one account of that in 1992. Please point me to a source. I am ignorign Perot. Here is one analysis:
And Another:
Lets just attribute that to you being flat out wrong and move on.

The problem is that it's based almost totally on exit polls, which are by far the most unreliable of polling and can't really tell you anything for sure from them either way. What does back up wha you're saying are the polls before the election when Perot dropped out temporarily and Bush's numbers did not drastically change but Clinton maintained his lead. That said, the Republicans still capitalized on a voter trend:

Discontent against the Democrats was foreshadowed by a string of elections after 1992, the more notable among them being the capture of the mayoralties of New York and Los Angeles by the Republicans in 1993. In that same year, Christine Todd Whitman captured the New Jersey governorship from the Democrats and Bret Schundler became the mayor of overwhelmingly Democratic Jersey City. The pace of Republican victories in off-year elections gained momentum. Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison took a senate seat from the Democrats in Texas. Republican Ron Lewis picked up a congressional seat from Democrats in Kentucky in May 1994.

And no, Clinton and Obama did not receive similar mandates. If they had, Clinton wouldn't have lost so many votes to Perot as you're arguing and ended up with 43% of the vote.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Not that I'm rooting for anyone in this fight, but I agree with NY Dragons & El Mudo that Petraeus could very well be a bigger star in four years than he is now. (Do we know if he's even a Republican though?)
He described himself as either a Rockefeller Republican or a Northeast Republican. I'll link to the story if I can find it, but that's what the party needs and that's someone whose ideology I probably match up with almost entirely.

[NewYorkDragons80]

As to Dragon's last pick, however, the knives are coming out to carve up Palin.

Andrew Sullivan's blog with a clip from Fox News (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/the-odd-truths.html)

Ouch!
Yeah, that's pretty bad. Are you referring to me touting Palin months prior? I knew what everyone else here knew and people from all sides here said "Sure she'd be an excellent pick, but she won't get it." At the time, I thought she was intelligent and despite being fairly conservative she still had an impressive independent streak. As embattled as that last claim was, I still think it holds up to some degree and she hurt the campaign based on her lack of intelligence, not Troopergate or anything else.

[JerseySean]

The problem is that it's based almost totally on exit polls, which are by far the most unreliable of polling and can't really tell you anything for sure from them either way. What does back up wha you're saying are the polls before the election when Perot dropped out temporarily and Bush's numbers did not drastically change but Clinton maintained his lead. That said, the Republicans still capitalized on a voter trend:



And no, Clinton and Obama did not receive similar mandates. If they had, Clinton wouldn't have lost so many votes to Perot as you're arguing and ended up with 43% of the vote.

Those were localized races. Schundler won with 11% of the vote in a 14 way(nonpartisan) race. Whitman won because Florio destroyed this state and raised 86 taxes. Giuliani won because DInkins destroyed the city. Those were all localized elections. I just showed you two accounts of where Perot took from Clinton on election day. There is NO arguing that. You are just wrong. Flat out wrong.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Here it is: (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/08/080908fa_fact_coll)
He pledged to be responsive to “both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue”—to his Commander-in-Chief in the White House, of course, but also to antiwar Democrats on Capitol Hill. Petraeus earned a doctoral degree at Princeton University in 1987; the title of his dissertation was “The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam.” In thinking about how to cope with political divisions in the United States over Iraq, he was influenced, he told me recently, by Samuel Huntington’s 1957 book “The Soldier and the State,” which argues that civilian control over the military can best be achieved when uniformed officers regard themselves as impartial professionals. Petraeus is registered to vote as a Republican in New Hampshire—he once described himself to a friend as a northeastern Republican, in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller—but he said that around 2002, after he became a two-star general, he stopped voting. As he departed for Baghdad, to oversee a “surge” deployment of additional American troops to Iraq, he sought, as he recalled it, “to try to avoid being pulled in one direction or another, to be in a sense used by one side or the other.” He added, “That’s very hard to do, because you become at some point sort of the face of the war, the face of the surge. So be it. You just have to deal with that.”
Wesley Clark *happened* to be NATO Commander during the Kosovo Conflict. It lasted a few months, and we bombed an embassy and lost an F-117. There are going to be mistakes made and I get that, but we're talking about an incredibly weak nation and a war that was entirely conducted in the air. Clark also left his post in some degree of shame.

Petraeus, meanwhile, is a peerless expert on the type of conflict we'll be fighting for at least the extent of his possible terms as President, if not for half a century. He took on Rumsfeld, paid the price, then his blueprints, diplomacy and leadership righted our mission in Iraq.

Now that you know, please do not make the mistake of confusing the two men again. Not all generals are created equal.

[Fezticle98]

Here it is: (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/08/080908fa_fact_coll)

Wesley Clark *happened* to be NATO Commander during the Kosovo Conflict. It lasted a few months, and we bombed an embassy and lost an F-117. There are going to be mistakes made and I get that, but we're talking about an incredibly weak nation and a war that was entirely conducted in the air. Clark also left his post in some degree of shame.

Petraeus, meanwhile, is a peerless expert on the type of conflict we'll be fighting for at least the extent of his possible terms as President, if not for half a century. He took on Rumsfeld, paid the price, then his blueprints, diplomacy and leadership righted our mission in Iraq.

Now that you know, please do not make the mistake of confusing the two men again. Not all generals are created equal.

Wesley Clark "happened" to be key in negotiating the Dayton Accords in 1995. He was key in solidifying NATO cooperation to enforce the accords when Serbia violated them.

The fact that he was able to do so, quickly, leading and international force, via airpower without losing a single soldier in combat, is to his credit. I am not attempting to compare the conflict in Kosovo with the scale of the war in Iraq, but to use the comparison as you do to somehow discredit Gen. Clark's career is not fair.

Clark took on Defense Secretary Cohen, and other military leaders, paid the price politically, but was proven correct by the results in Kosovo. To pretend that he was merely in the right place at the right time, rather than an active and likely primary reason for the success of that campaign is ingorant.

Clark did not leave his office in shame. He paid politically for how he went about conducting the Kosovo campaign.

We lost an F-117. We lost an F-117.

[Syd]

We lost an F-117 due to ingenuity we haven't seen since the current war in Iraq.

Also as far as Petraeus goes -- Shinseki held many of the same beliefs as him. He just happened to be the guy to come along after Rumsfeld so he could go through with the same strategy.

Anyway, who is to say that Petraeus has ambitions AND has ambitions with the Republican Party? Remember, he is the guy who thinks it is a good idea to work diplomatically and for unconventional tactics like simply paying people not to be violent. He's not the hawk that a lot of people think he is, more the ferret. Rockefeller Republicans and NE Republicans aren't exactly that separate from the Democratic Party nowadays.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Also as far as Petraeus goes -- Shinseki held many of the same beliefs as him. He just happened to be the guy to come along after Rumsfeld so he could go through with the same strategy.
Shinseki was certainly right about troop levels initially, but even if we had 50,000 additional troops at the time, it was a losing strategy that had us constantly on the defense and alienated us from the Iraqis. The consensus is that the surge "got lucky" because Petraeus was chosen to lead it.
http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq152/littlekitnerboy/41nRlafhvOL_SS500_.jpg
Anyway, who is to say that Petraeus has ambitions AND has ambitions with the Republican Party? Remember, he is the guy who thinks it is a good idea to work diplomatically and for unconventional tactics like simply paying people not to be violent. He's not the hawk that a lot of people think he is, more the ferret. Rockefeller Republicans and NE Republicans aren't exactly that separate from the Democratic Party nowadays.
There are a lot of people who think the Republican party has strayed from the principles you just listed, and they would likely see Petraeus as the guy who could return it to that point.

Wesley Clark "happened" to be key in negotiating the Dayton Accords in 1995. He was key in solidifying NATO cooperation to enforce the accords when Serbia violated them.

The fact that he was able to do so, quickly, leading and international force, via airpower without losing a single soldier in combat, is to his credit. I am not attempting to compare the conflict in Kosovo with the scale of the war in Iraq, but to use the comparison as you do to somehow discredit Gen. Clark's career is not fair.

Clark took on Defense Secretary Cohen, and other military leaders, paid the price politically, but was proven correct by the results in Kosovo. To pretend that he was merely in the right place at the right time, rather than an active and likely primary reason for the success of that campaign is ingorant.

Clark did not leave his office in shame. He paid politically for how he went about conducting the Kosovo campaign.
“I’ve known Wes for a long time, I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. . . . Wes won’t get my vote."
-General Hugh Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

There's nothing to judge Clark against. Petraeus took a failing strategy and made it work. Clark "ran" an all air war. How much of a role did Clark have in air battle planning?

[keithy_19]

This may really mess with a lot of people, but...


Nancy Pelosi will be the GOP candidate in 2012.


Hell will freeze over. The world will end. Mayans 1, Planet Earth 0.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Not to beat a dead horse, but Petraeus's theories will be studied for generations. Wesley Clark is a blip on the map of history who led a 78 day war. Kudos on Clark's diplomatic skills, but Petraeus brings diplomacy AND an intricate understanding of counterinsurgency that will be relevant as long as we are fighting asymmetric warfare. There's almost no comparison.

[brettmojo]

<object width="425" height="344">

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fK631vOJ9LY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fK631vOJ9LY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-teM03FPUow&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

[Syd]

[QUOTE=NewYorkDragons80;1943879]/QUOTE]

Still I have to re-iterate -- the "core" Republicans would shit their pants if they knew what Petraeus actually did and it is a great reason why a fundamental shift in foreign policy will be good for the US, Middle East and the rest of the world. Diplomacy, both conventional and unconventional, is proving far better than the thermobaric weapons and MRAPs that were supposed to save our troops.

[TheMojoPin]

If Patraeus won elected office prior to running for prez, I'd be all for it, ad so would a lot of the electorate. If he's VP, that's an awesome choice. If he's a cabinet member, that's brilliant...I just do not see him winning as the presidential pick. All of the reasonings here for him to be the pick are very well thought out ad sound and make perfect sense...they're also incredibly boring. Like it or not, selling the prez has to be dumbed diwn, and that can really only be done with him by tagging him as "the Iraq general," and that is tough to overcome, not only due to Iraq, but just how shittly candidates who are high-ranking military officials have done in major elections post-Ike.

[Syd]

Ike was also a BRILLIANT politician, though. Exception to the normal ex-military leader turned politician. He's rivaled only by Nixon in terms of political aptitude. Eisenhower, while fighting the Communist threat, enacted many socialist programs and greatly expanded current socialist programs. If he was in office in WW2, it would be quite likely that socialized healthcare would have gone through. Guy was brilliant.

[TheMojoPin]

Ike was also a BRILLIANT politician, though. Exception to the normal ex-military leader turned politician. He's rivaled only by Nixon in terms of political aptitude. Eisenhower, while fighting the Communist threat, enacted many socialist programs and greatly expanded current socialist programs. If he was in office in WW2, it would be quite likely that socialized healthcare would have gone through. Guy was brilliant.

It's almost cliche to bring up, but the crux of his farewell address, coming from a career military man, is amazing.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qdrGKwkmxAU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qdrGKwkmxAU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[FezsAssistant]

How do they out-gimmick a black man with a muslim-sounding name?
Not sure that can be done. Maybe a conservative puerto rican jew woman with AIDS???
I think that's their only shot.

I guess they have to figure out which gimmick is bulletproof against the liberal media.
Who would be considered more of a 'disabled person' than a black man according to the liberal media?

[TheMojoPin]

How do they out-gimmick a black man with a muslim-sounding name?
Not sure that can be done. Maybe a conservative puerto rican jew woman with AIDS???
I think that's their only shot.

I guess they have to figure out which gimmick is bulletproof against the liberal media.
Who would be considered more of a 'disabled person' than a black man according to the liberal media?

Go sit in the corner and think about what you did.

[JerseySean]

If Patraeus won elected office prior to running for prez, I'd be all for it, ad so would a lot of the electorate. If he's VP, that's an awesome choice. If he's a cabinet member, that's brilliant...I just do not see him winning as the presidential pick. All of the reasonings here for him to be the pick are very well thought out ad sound and make perfect sense...they're also incredibly boring. Like it or not, selling the prez has to be dumbed diwn, and that can really only be done with him by tagging him as "the Iraq general," and that is tough to overcome, not only due to Iraq, but just how shittly candidates who are high-ranking military officials have done in major elections post-Ike.

Keep in mind that 6 years ago George W Bush had a 90% approval and 9/11 had just happened. Fast forward a few years and we elect Barack Hussein Obama to the White House and the Bush name is shit. Today, American politics moves faster than ever. Patraeus wont be the nominee or even close. Unless Obama ends up being what I suspect him to be.......a total pussy when it comes to dealing with our enemies.

[epo]

Keep in mind that 6 years ago George W Bush had a 90% approval and 9/11 had just happened. Fast forward a few years and we elect Barack Hussein Obama to the White House and the Bush name is shit. Today, American politics moves faster than ever. Patraeus wont be the nominee or even close. Unless Obama ends up being what I suspect him to be.......a total pussy when it comes to dealing with our enemies.

Thanks for the partisan hackery on President-Elect Obama. You have less than nothing to base that statement upon and yet you did it anyway.

[JerseySean]

Thanks for the partisan hackery on President-Elect Obama. You have less than nothing to base that statement upon and yet you did it anyway.

I had to tag it with that....but just remember how quickly things can change.

[epo]

I had to tag it with that....but just remember how quickly things can change.

I'm with you that things can change very quickly in Washington. That is the nature of the land.

[JerseySean]

I'm with you that things can change very quickly in Washington. That is the nature of the land.

And its happening with our "new media" even faster. It will be interesting as a fan of politics to see if Obama can maintain decent approvals in such a world. I think he will get a year or so grace perios, unless he fucks really badly. Thats longer than most.

[A.J.]

It's almost cliche to bring up, but the crux of his farewell address, coming from a career military man, is amazing.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qdrGKwkmxAU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qdrGKwkmxAU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And it's what led to JFK's assassination by General Y, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Fezticle98]

Can anyone come up with a reason that Charlie Crist will not be the nominee in 2012?

Other than flimsy rumors that he is gay?

[Syd]

He isn't a particularly good campaigner. He's reportedly on the level of someone like Richardson -- well received by the media or anyone he is one on one with but in an actual campaign falters.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Other than flimsy rumors that he is gay?

That might be the reason. Obviously I don't give a shit, and he's not an anti-gay bigot, so anyone who tries to "out" him (assuming he is gay) is just being an ass.

[TheMojoPin]

And it's what led to JFK's assassination by General Y, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Hoo-hoo! Though that silliness thinks LHO was having his lunch when it all went down.

[TheMojoPin]

I had to tag it with that....but just remember how quickly things can change.

You hinged your point on 9/11...the type of event that's unlikely to happen during a president's tenure. Bush's first 2 years are an exception because of it, not any kind of model you can rely on.

[JerseySean]

You hinged your point on 9/11...the type of event that's unlikely to happen during a president's tenure. Bush's first 2 years are an exception because of it, not any kind of model you can rely on.

Exactly....thats the extreme example. Take the moderate example and see how it can happen even quicker.

[TheMojoPin]

Exactly....thats the extreme example. Take the moderate example and see how it can happen even quicker.

Wait...what?

[K.C.]

Can anyone come up with a reason that Charlie Crist will not be the nominee in 2012?

Other than flimsy rumors that he is gay?

There's no juice around the guy.

On paper, he'd be a good choice, but I don't think he really has the 'it' factor to compete nationally.

I'd equate it to Biden running for President. On paper, Biden was probably the most qualified Democrat running for the nomination in 2008.

But he just didn't have it.

[lleeder]

I say Miguel Prado. He's tough on crime and big on family values.

[JerseySean]

Wait...what?

In other words Bush's approvals were EXTREMELY high 90% as opposed to a moderately popular President. By the time Obama is in office 2 weeks, I suspect his approvals will be around 65-70%

[underdog]

I say Miguel Prado. He's tough on crime and big on family values.

He even has the wacky brother to try to keep out of the media.

[TheMojoPin]

In other words Bush's approvals were EXTREMELY high 90% as opposed to a moderately popular President. By the time Obama is in office 2 weeks, I suspect his approvals will be around 65-70%

What does that have to do with Bush and 9/11? 9/11 occured 8 months into his first term.

[scottinnj]

Governor Jindahl, he's the GOP's only hope if Obama is even remotely okay as prez.

But Obama will have to turn out Michelle and burn the Oval Office's carpet with ashes from his blunt before the nation re-elects a Republican merely 4 years after W.

That's how badly Georgie fucked up the GOP brand.

[scottinnj]

Can anyone come up with a reason that Charlie Crist will not be the nominee in 2012?

Other than flimsy rumors that he is gay?



Other then the fact that everyone goes "WHO?" when you say his name?

His campaign coffers would be emptied just introducing himself to most Americans.

[Syd]

Governor Jindahl, he's the GOP's only hope if Obama is even remotely okay as prez.

But Obama will have to turn out Michelle and burn the Oval Office's carpet with ashes from his blunt before the nation re-elects a Republican merely 4 years after W.

That's how badly Georgie fucked up the GOP brand.

Obama will have to do a little more than that. Jindal is a self-proclaimed exorcist.

[JerseySean]

Obama will have to do a little more than that. Jindal is a self-proclaimed exorcist.

And Obama is a muslim....stop it

[JerseySean]

According to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, 69 percent of Republican voters say the Alaska governor helped McCain’s bid for the presidency. Twenty percent of GOP voters said she hurt the ticket, six percent said she had no effect, and 5 percent were undecided.

Other results of the poll:

91 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin.
65 percent of Republicans have a very favorable view of Palin.
8 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable view of Palin.
3 percent of Republicans have a very unfavorable view of Palin.
64 percent of Republicans say Palin is their top choice for the GOP 2012 presidential nominee.
12 percent of Republicans say Mike Huckabee is their top choice for the GOP 2012 presidential nominee.
11 percent of Republicans say Mitt Romney is their top choice for the GOP 2012 presidential nominee.

Here is your answer to the question of this thread.

[GreatAmericanZero]

yeah but the republicans just went through a period of having palin sold to them for a couple of months. The republicans won't run her again because she doesn't appeal outside the base...whoever they end up choosing the republicans will have a favorable view of them too cuz republicans will buy whoever their party sells them

[JerseySean]

yeah but the republicans just went through a period of having palin sold to them for a couple of months. The republicans won't run her again because she doesn't appeal outside the base...whoever they end up choosing the republicans will have a favorable view of them too cuz republicans will buy whoever their party sells them

People said the same about Reagan in 76

[NewYorkDragons80]

Obama will have to do a little more than that. Jindal is a self-proclaimed exorcist.

Read his full article. I think he casts doubt on whether or not this was definitively a possession.

[paracetamol flanders]

Republican frontrunner in 2012: clone of 8th century Mayan king Yik'in Chan K'awiil (or K’awiil the Sky Darkener) because the end of days as predicted by the Mayan calendar will be a front burner issue in 2012.

Possibly crossed with a clone of a woolly mammoth to capture the youth vote.

[GreatAmericanZero]

People said the same about Reagan in 76

yeah but its 2008 now. And the fact that some many republicans supported Palin only to throw her under the bus after they lost proves that many many people will just support whatever their team has to offer

[NewYorkDragons80]

Republican frontrunner in 2012: clone of 8th century Mayan king Yik'in Chan K'awiil (or K’awiil the Sky Darkener) because the end of days as predicted by the Mayan calendar will be a front burner issue in 2012.

Possibly crossed with a clone of a woolly mammoth to capture the youth vote.

http://www.killthepigeons.com/nucleus/media/1/20070531-rm_an1-1.gif

[ChimneyFish]

I'm going with Voodoo Jesus.

[JerseySean]

yeah but its 2008 now. And the fact that some many republicans supported Palin only to throw her under the bus after they lost proves that many many people will just support whatever their team has to offer

First of all, it was a handfull or less of McCain people who threw her under the bus. It wasnt the party. At this point, there is no "party" just like there was no Democrat party two years ago. If the "party" insiders had their way, they would have had Romney as the nominee this time. The notion of the party, meaning a small class of elite insiders, on either side picking a Presidential nominee is ludacris.

[Hithead]

Trig Palin

[Syd]

First of all, it was a handfull or less of McCain people who threw her under the bus. It wasnt the party. At this point, there is no "party" just like there was no Democrat party two years ago. If the "party" insiders had their way, they would have had Romney as the nominee this time. The notion of the party, meaning a small class of elite insiders, on either side picking a Presidential nominee is ludacris.

The party insiders had no idea who to back -- that is why McCain gained the nomination. The cluster that was the first few primaries led t oanyone with money not knowing who to back, and since NH happened at the 'right' time for McCain he was seen as the person to give money to and he was the guy who pulled the nomination, at least unofficially at that time.

[sr71blackbird]

I think that Condoleza Rice would make a great opponent to Obama in the next race.

[epo]

I think that Condoleza Rice would make a great opponent to Obama in the next race.

Considering that she has publicly stated that she doesn't want to deal with elected office....so do I.

[Reynolds]

Has anyone ever lost in either the primaries or the presidential election, then ran again successfully?

I think after you lose once, you lost your chance and should focus on moving on.

I think it will take a couple years to study how Obama is doing before the republicans decide what to do. If he begins faltering, I'm with Ron and say that Jeb Bush will be there in 2012. If Obama seems to be doing well, I think the republicans will dig up someone that is presently a no name. I think this was the last we'll see Palin as a political figure.

[epo]

Has anyone ever lost in either the primaries or the presidential election, then ran again successfully?

I think after you lose once, you lost your chance and should focus on moving on.

I think it will take a couple years to study how Obama is doing before the republicans decide what to do. If he begins faltering, I'm with Ron and say that Jeb Bush will be there in 2012. If Obama seems to be doing well, I think the republicans will dig up someone that is presently a no name. I think this was the last we'll see Palin as a political figure.

Reagan ran and lost in the 1976 primaries.
Nixon lost the 1960 general election.

I would say in general, that if there is a "rule" of conventional wisdom, said rule will be broken eventually. It's all about right time, right place for many politicians.

[TheMojoPin]

Has anyone ever lost in either the primaries or the presidential election, then ran again successfully?

The idea that someone is "one and done" has really only taken off post-Reagan, and I'm not really sure why. Up until him, it was very typical for people who became president to swing and whiff, sometimes more than once, before actually winning it all.

[NewYorkDragons80]

The idea that someone is "one and done" has really only taken off post-Reagan, and I'm not really sure why. Up until him, it was very typical for people who became president to swing and whiff, sometimes more than once, before actually winning it all.

Not exactly the same thing, but FDR lost as a VP candidate and Adlai Stevenson lost the general election, then managed to win the nomination again 4 years later. This election also broke the convention that anytime the Democratic nomination is nasty, the Republican wins.

[JerseySean]

Not exactly the same thing, but FDR lost as a VP candidate and Adlai Stevenson lost the general election, then managed to win the nomination again 4 years later. This election also broke the convention that anytime the Democratic nomination is nasty, the Republican wins.

Stevenson was a sacrifice. for the Dems 56. Thats all.

[NewYorkDragons80]

I think it will take a couple years to study how Obama is doing before the republicans decide what to do. If he begins faltering, I'm with Ron and say that Jeb Bush will be there in 2012. If Obama seems to be doing well, I think the republicans will dig up someone that is presently a no name. I think this was the last we'll see Palin as a political figure.

Jeb Bush would be a good president, but it's never gonna happen.

[Syd]

Jeb Bush would be a good president, but it's never gonna happen.

Somewhere every night Jeb cries himself to sleep knowing he'll never have a chance at being President due to George W. Kind of a pity as he is the most legitimate candidate the GOP has right now.

[SP1!]

Watch, if Jeb goes for it, hes got it. He will put together a machine and he is one of those politicians with a brilliant record and who is 100x smarter than his brother or father.
Thats not really saying a lot though, bush seemed ok at the beginning but towards the end you were wondering how he walked that far with out falling.

What?

You know how bad Obama will have to be in the next 4 years for people to forget a 1 term father and a brother who ruined a country?
Well I dont think he will have to be that bad, especially if hes going to raise taxes across the board like he will have to do just to fund programs that he wants to start.

Like the way Obama blew Pennsylvania and Colorado with his comments on the coal industry?

Your political judgments are quite suspect right about now.
Im sorry that didnt surface until the last day or so in the election, if more of that was found early I think obama would have been in trouble, like those old radio recordings of obama. The main reason that mccain lost was because of bush, the second reason he lost was an ill timed market crash from policies that have been in effect for the past 10 years but somehow got lumped on republicans.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if David Petraeus wants the nomination, it's his. The only thing stopping him would be if Obama is overwhelmingly popular in 2011. I think this party dominance is more vulnerable than it's being given credit for. This election had nothing to do with McCain or Palin. This was a referendum on Bush, and even the most independent-minded Senator in the Republican party couldn't save them. What will Obama accomplish in the next 4 years? Can the energy and excitement of 2008 be repeated? Will he let down a base of first-time voters with lofty expectations? Can he repeat success without a Republican strawman to point to? This is *highly* dependent on those factors.

Just because she'll lose doesn't mean she won't run.
I think that there is a good reason to think that there will be a couple of attacks in the beginning of his presidency, mainly because they think hes vulnerable so we will see how he reacts. If there are attacks you can look at military leadership to be a big requirement for presidents in the next few elections, lets just hope most are not as hardcore as burt lancaster in Seven Days in May.

[Jujubees2]

If there are attacks you can look at military leadership to be a big requirement for presidents in the next few elections, lets just hope most are not as hardcore as burt lancaster in Seven Days in May.

You mean like the military leadership that our current president has?

[MacVittie]

In 2012, George P. Bush will be old enough to run

http://blogs.tampabay.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/24/georgepbush_2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush

[JerseySean]

I would say in general, that if there is a "rule" of conventional wisdom, said rule will be broken eventually. It's all about right time, right place for many politicians.

Way to go out on a limb there.

[TheMojoPin]

I think that there is a good reason to think that there will be a couple of attacks in the beginning of his presidency, mainly because they think hes vulnerable so we will see how he reacts. If there are attacks you can look at military leadership to be a big requirement for presidents in the next few elections, lets just hope most are not as hardcore as burt lancaster in Seven Days in May.

"A couple of attacks?" By who? Al Queda? They aready got what they want...extended US military involvement in region that allows them to attack "us" on a regular basis. If anything, a McCain nomination would have been arguably more likely to draw these ridicuously unlikely "attacks" since he's perceived as far more aggressive.

[JerseySean]

"A couple of attacks?" By who? Al Queda? They aready got what they want...extended US military involvement in region that allows them to attack "us" on a regular basis. If anything, a McCain nomination would have been arguably more likely to draw these ridicuously unlikely "attacks" since he's perceived as far more aggressive.

Stop it with that bullshit hypothesis about Al Qeada wanting us to be in the middle east. Their finances have been disrupted and they are operating much less freely. You guys can shit on Bush all you want, but not on this. Al Queada is not happier now. They cannot operate and as an organization, they are in shambles. Stop it. You sound ridiculous now.

[TheMojoPin]

Stop it with that bullshit hypothesis about Al Qeada wanting us to be in the middle east. Their finances have been disrupted and they are operating much less freely. You guys can shit on Bush all you want, but not on this. Al Queada is not happier now. They cannot operate and as an organization, they are in shambles. Stop it. You sound ridiculous now.

The goal of bin Laden was to draw America into a prolonged overseason conflict that would result in loss of American lives and American money and resources. He actually ideally wanted Somalia to be the catalyst for that conflict.

You can read up on it here. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/24/2013753.htm)

Or in these excellent books:

http://images.contentreserve.com/ImageType-100/1219-1/%7B9F8A1FEE-BEF2-490B-8A0D-003F64A8B6ED%7DImg100.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CZ985V5DL.jpg

I'm curious as to what you think they want.

[JerseySean]

The goal of bin Laden was to draw America into a prolonged overseason conflict that would result in loss of American lives and American money and resources. He actually ideally wanted Somalia to be the catalyst for that conflict.

You can read up on it here. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/24/2013753.htm)

Or in these excellent books:

http://images.contentreserve.com/ImageType-100/1219-1/%7B9F8A1FEE-BEF2-490B-8A0D-003F64A8B6ED%7DImg100.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CZ985V5DL.jpg

I'm curious as to what you think they want.

Ive read plenty. I was in colllege and had a comparative politics professor who made us read a bunch of that stuff. What Bin Laden didnt bargain for was the systematic shutdown of financing and operational abilitiy and mobility.

[TheMojoPin]

Ive read plenty. I was in colllege and had a comparative politics professor who made us read a bunch of that stuff. What Bin Laden didnt bargain for was the systematic shutdown of financing and operational abilitiy and mobility.

He underestimated the US ability to respond as effectively as they did...but the US didn't seal the deal and he ironically ended up getting exactly what he wanted in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The article I linked to talks about exactly what you brought up, but the Bush administration ultimately dropped the ball by invading Iraq when he did. If the focus had remained on Afghanistan, boom, bin Laden's plan to "bring the Americans to fight on Arab" soil would have likely ended before it really began.

Seriously though, The Looming Tower should be required reading for, well, everyone, especially anyone who wants to actually start understanding the why's and origins of 9/11. That book is, at least for now, pretty much the gold standard for who bin Laden is/was and what Al Queda was/is.

[SP1!]

You mean like the military leadership that our current president has?
I was thinking of someone with an actual military background or common sense.

"A couple of attacks?" By who? Al Queda? They aready got what they want...extended US military involvement in region that allows them to attack "us" on a regular basis. If anything, a McCain nomination would have been arguably more likely to draw these ridicuously unlikely "attacks" since he's perceived as far more aggressive.
Yes cause they havent challenged any other president before, in obamas fantasy world they are bringing all the troops home so that means they will have to attack. I look for the next attack to make 9/11 look like a test run.

He underestimated the US ability to respond as effectively as they did...but the US didn't seal the deal and he ironically ended up getting exactly what he wanted in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The article I linked to talks about exactly what you brought up, but the Bush administration ultimately dropped the ball by invading Iraq when he did. If the focus had remained on Afghanistan, boom, bin Laden's plan to "bring the Americans to fight on Arab" soil would have likely ended before it really began.

Seriously though, The Looming Tower should be required reading for, well, everyone, especially anyone who wants to actually start understanding the why's and origins of 9/11. That book is, at least for now, pretty much the gold standard for who bin Laden is/was and what Al Queda was/is.
Yes cause they are religious nutjobs is too easy of an explanation for that question.

[patsopinion]

In 2012, George P. Bush will be old enough to run

http://blogs.tampabay.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/24/georgepbush_2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush

he looks like a mexican; wouldnt win

[A.J.]

The goal of bin Laden was to draw America into a prolonged overseason conflict that would result in loss of American lives and American money and resources. He actually ideally wanted Somalia to be the catalyst for that conflict.

And it was also to split the U.S.-Saudi alliance by picking all Saudi hijackers to conduct the 9/11 attacks. That hasn't happened however.

[MacVittie]

he looks like a mexican; wouldnt win

Mexican and Republican could be the perfect combo

[bigfatfuck]

http://www.healthpopuli.com/uploaded_images/Newt-708794-731738.jpg

[TheMojoPin]

Yes cause they havent challenged any other president before, in obamas fantasy world they are bringing all the troops home so that means they will have to attack. I look for the next attack to make 9/11 look like a test run.

9/11's purpose wasn't to "test" Bush or anyone else. The clear (and stated) goal was to draw the US into conflict in the Middle East.

Obama's plan actually gives them what probably want at this point, ironically. The Sunni opposition to foreign Al-Queada fighters has been remarkably effective in Iraq. Shifting US troops back to Afghanistan, which is a mess right now, is a more ideal "hunting ground" for Al-Queda to attack US forces.

It's a little depressing that you seem to assume that Al-Queda can attack this country however they wan, whenever they want and you have absolutely no doubt they could pull it off.

Yes cause they are religious nutjobs is too easy of an explanation for that question.

Though I suppose if you assume everyone just works in broad generalizations like this one, your pessimism makes sense.

[Syd]

9/11's purpose wasn't to "test" Bush or anyone else. The clear (and stated) goal was to draw the US into conflict in the Middle East.

If AQ had an ultimate goal with regards to 9/11, it was to force the US to spend a lot of money. It's what OBL and the rest of the Mujahideen/Taliban did to the USSR in Afghanistan. They forced them to spend so much money they spiraled into bankruptcy, unable to keep up spending. Seeing as our debt has what, doubled? in the past decade I'd say they were so wildly successful that if it wasn't morbid and incredibly insincere you could replace the term "hit a home run" with "9/11'd it"

[TheMojoPin]

If AQ had an ultimate goal with regards to 9/11, it was to force the US to spend a lot of money. It's what OBL and the rest of the Mujahideen/Taliban did to the USSR in Afghanistan. They forced them to spend so much money they spiraled into bankruptcy, unable to keep up spending. Seeing as our debt has what, doubled? in the past decade I'd say they were so wildly successful that if it wasn't morbid and incredibly insincere you could replace the term "hit a home run" with "9/11'd it"

Indeed.