RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events republican 2012

huckabees out. trumps out, not surprisingly. who is the GOP looking at here? newt? palin? mccain v3: the return? seems tame. who is the most viable candidate?

2012 seems moreso to be shaping up like a bizarro 2004, where one entire half is so focused on how much they hate the other, they forget to put up a better option.

obama, himself, was a dark horse (racism) so there's always potential for an unknown to swoop in. but is that likely? is the GOP gonna put up a contender? or are we back to an election where you're voting against someone else, rather than for someone?

I am worried that the republicans will john kerry themselves this time.

The only candidate I like is Herman Cain. He's got military experience, decades of business experience and he beat cancer twice. I think he's the guy we need but I'm afraid one of the higher profile candidates will get the nomination.

I'm fairly certain it's not gonna matter.

Despite all the bad press following him now, as soon as election time comes around, reporters are going to start making concessions for him again. Plus, he still has ardently loyal followers in the youth vote (not that they know shit about what he has or has not done) and minority vote.

This isn't even taking in to mind the inevitable voting scams from ACORN-esque organizations.

Right now, the frontrunner is probably Romney, just because he seems to have the best organization and was "last man standing" against McCain last time around.

That doesn't mean he'll get it, insofar as a lot can happen in the next eight months. Furthermore, his refusal to admit he fucked up with Romneycare will dog him during the nomination process and probably during the general.

Nor does his likely frontrunner status mean that he's my favorite (I'll support him over Obama but that's not saying much). I like Mitch Daniels (who hasn't formally announced) but he's probably not "Jesusy" enough for some of the southern states.

I'm still not convinced Palin is running. I suspect that--like Trump and Huckabee--she's going to figure out that she's got a cushy TV gig and stay put. Furthermore, if Bachmann is getting in I have a feeling that could because Michelle knows Sarah isn't in it. They're allies and I would think that Bachmann would endorse Palin if she was running, instead of running herself.

Newt, god bless him, is probably the smartest guy in either party running. But his personal life will kill him with the religious types and he's probably too much of a technocrat to really resonate with voters.

Keep an eye on Tim Pawlenty. There are some theories that the other candidates will knock each other out and he'll be the compromise candidate.

It's also too early to tell how strong a candidate Obama will be. Yes, he'll have the center-left media, the unions and ACORN stealing every vote they can. And right now he's has some good will from Osama. But things could go sour (again) for him really quick. Or he could catch a break and be even stronger.

However, assuming that Obama is unpopular the "vote for the other guy" theory could get the GOP in regardless of who they run.

No one should be assuming the outcome on either side at this point.

Another problem for the GOP is their plans for Medicare and Social Security are not popular.

If MEM truly believes that the people are clamoring for socialized medicine then he should be deeply afraid of Romney. After all, Romney (as noted above) is the guy who brought socialized medicine to Masschusetts. If people support that, as MEM seems to think, then they'd vote for Romney as likely as they would Obama.

What's Romney's skin color?

Heh, so G-man can't even acknowledge that these programs are very popular. Plus what Romney used to be for is quite different than what he says he's for now. (much like Newt and other republicans who've been around for a while) Trying to say they're for the same thing just isn't even close to being true.

Kinda like how Obama says he's for transparent government, right?

The Republicans haven't really put someone out there good enough to swing the mass public. Still early, but they're too busy trying to find out how the wind's blowing to field a good candidate.

No major party (at least when they don't have the incumbent) should currently be ready to "field a candidate" this far before an election. The whole point of the primary process is for each side's voters to consider and test their candidates and figure out which one should represent the party in this election.

I think there's some maneuvering room for Romney regarding the plan for Massachusetts he provided.

1) He was governor of a liberal state, and provided what the majority of people in a liberal state wanted.

2) It was legislated for the people of one state, and not imposed on all 50 states against the overwhelming majority of voters, as Obamacare was.

3) He can say that it was an experiment, and that he has learned from the failures of Romneycare, how to create a better, more free-market, more efficient and cost-reducing system in the future.


I've thought Romney a strong contender up to this point, a very smart and capable guy, who is not a polarizing figure, as both W.Bush and Obama have been.
But the fact that Romney is silent on Romneycare, completely unrepentant, makes me doubt his ability to withstand scrutiny and win the primary. The sooner he answers questions about Romneycare, and provides palatable answers, the better his chances of winning.

Romney's health care problem is really only one during the primary. If he won that it could actually be a plus for him for the general election if played right. His religion is might be the bigger problem.

Compared to all the republican candidates who are against transparent government? They all campaign on being for transparent government Doctor and I never expect too much no matter who wins. Not so with medicare and other programs. Either Obama wins and holds the line or a republican wins and those programs will be diminished.

I would argue that for all the heat that W. Bush got from a media that despised him, he was more open than Obama.

The Democrats' behind-closed-doors debates on Obamacare? Not broaadcast as promised on C-SPAN?
Throwing reporters who criticize him off his plane (on two occasions that I'm aware of)?
Trying to shut down Fox News and deny them access to the White House? (which even the rest of the liberal media objected to and sided with Fox, because they knew that if Fox was shut down, the noose would be tightened even more around the remaining media)

The Obama White House has reached Himalayan new heights in Orwellian double-speak, when they boast about their unparalleled "transparency".

Again, Obama's "FCC Diversity Czar" Mark Lloyd is a guy who can be seen on youtube video praising Hugo Chavez's takeover of the Venezuelan media as "very effective" and "a good model to follow".

With the "transparency" Obama offers, who needs a Soviet Union?
Especially with a liberal media who eagerly acts as his Ministry of Truth.

To answer the opening question, I think there are plenty of potentially good and capable Republican candidates.

Romney remains the front runner, the best organized and funded. Romney is a proven and tested leader, in both the public and private sectors. He certainly presents the economic knowledge and record of accomplishment needed to be president.
In contrast to Obama's ideologically driven hurling of trillions ineffectually at the problem, while demonizing W.Bush and the Republicans, blaming Bush for his own failures with highly polarizing rhetoric.

I also like Bachmann (a more electable version of Sarah Palin, a former tax lawyer, a budget-cutting fiscal conservative, one of the founders of the Tea Party, and already a very visible figure on the Republican scene).

Mitch Daniels (who likewise has shown a record of effective debt-slashing and business growth as governor of Indiana). He's a modest low-key no-nonsense guy who just quietly gets the job done. In contrast to Obama, who is all charisma and no results.

I like Newt Gingrich, he's the master planner for the Contract With America in 1994, and got Bill Clinton to work with him to reform welfare and reduce the deficit from 1995 to 2000. But he's really stepped in it the last few days, and may have ruined his ability to rally support. But Gingrich unquestionably has vision for the nation, and a lot of great ideas. If not a president, he would be a great chief of staff in someone else's white house.

Pawlenty has been a very competent governor in a blue state, but doesn't at this point say anything that lights me on fire for him.

Likewise Rick Santorum, who seems more ideologically driven, a gung-ho pro lifer (I'm pro life, but don't think that should be a litmus test for selecting a Republican candidate), and Santorum isn't helped at all that he was trounced badly as a sitting Senator in '08 before making this presidential bid.

I like Ron Paul, and some of what he says about controlling the Fed and getting back to the Constitution is valid. But in the same breath he says crazy shit about how we shouldn't have shot Bin Ladin, etc. So I don't see his candidacy going anywhere either.

Mormon!

That's even less popular than black.

Not what I said or meant but that doesn't really matter to you does it?

My point was that both sides say their both for it and neither really deliver. While I think transparency is important to most people, Social Security and Medicare rate higher.

You are turning into a parody of a parody of yourself.