Warning: array_merge() [function.array-merge]: Argument #2 is not an array in /home/perfecto/perfectworldtoo.us/public_html/preflight/indexFunctions.php on line 3673
Start your engines: Will we have a better choice of drivers in 2012?
Folders: A Sense of Place ·­ Blogosphere ·­ Chat ·­ Competitive Sports ·­ Current Events ·­ Domestic Sphere ·­ Family ·­ Finance, Careers, & Education ·­ Games & Goofiness ·­ Geek Subjects ·­ Global Policy ·­ Health & Fitness ·­ Literature & The Arts ·­ Marketplace ·­ Meta-Forum ·­ Mostly Christmas ·­ Movies ·­ Politics ·­ Social Policy ·­ TPW Archives ·­ TV Talk ·­ Values & Beliefs
 
The Perfect World >> Politics >> Start your engines: Will we have a better choice of drivers in 2012?

Start your engines: Will we have a better choice of drivers in 2012?

Nicholas Kronos -- Monday, January 31, 2011 -- 05:44:24 PM

The 2012 presidential campaign--you know it's coming and starting already. Will anyone run we can actually be excited about?

This thread is tagged:
tag this thread:   
  (All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
Check Subscriptions   The Latest   First   Previous   Next   Recent   
Mostone -- Saturday, February 12, 2011 -- 08:54:45 PM -- 18 of 2421

Will anyone run we can actually be excited about?

I seriously doubt it.

eta - But I am hoping for an entertaining primary season this time around.

dirt track date -- Sunday, February 13, 2011 -- 06:57:56 AM -- 19 of 2421
Shit is fucked up and bullshit

Pass the popcorn:

Palin hires a chief of staff

Santorum

GregD -- Wednesday, February 23, 2011 -- 04:48:37 PM -- 20 of 2421
After the power to choose a man wants the power to erase. --Stephen Dunn

Gingrich tries to confront his sordid personal problems ahead of a possible 2012 run.

“I've had a life which, on occasion, has had problems,” he added. “I believe in a forgiving God, and the American people will have to decide whether that their primary concern. If the primary concern of the American people is my past, my candidacy would be irrelevant. If the primary concern of the American people is the future... that's a debate I'll be happy to have with your candidate or any other candidate if I decide to run."

Gingrich cheated on his first with his second, and his second with his third. If I were the third Ms. Gingrich, I'd watch that shitheel like a hawk.

CalGal -- Wednesday, February 23, 2011 -- 05:30:49 PM -- 21 of 2421
I remember a time, back in the late 90s, when I thought nonsense like this mattered somewhat more than I do now. Now I see well-educated people yammering about the birth control choices of their daughters, or gay marriage, and I think they are morons.

Really? You'd have married the guy in the first place given his history, and expect us to believe you'd get tough then?

CalGal -- Wednesday, February 23, 2011 -- 05:31:24 PM -- 22 of 2421
I remember a time, back in the late 90s, when I thought nonsense like this mattered somewhat more than I do now. Now I see well-educated people yammering about the birth control choices of their daughters, or gay marriage, and I think they are morons.

Obama's strategies

Galston says that Obama plans on his fringe base, and doesn't think that will work.

GregD -- Wednesday, February 23, 2011 -- 06:05:14 PM -- 23 of 2421
After the power to choose a man wants the power to erase. --Stephen Dunn

Best would be never to have anything to do with him, certainly. The vows had to have been an interesting moment.

Lizzie T. -- Sunday, February 27, 2011 -- 11:24:46 PM -- 24 of 2421
Oh, for crying out loud.

Newt Gingrich to announce intentions within two weeks.

dirt track date -- Monday, February 28, 2011 -- 05:47:12 AM -- 25 of 2421
Shit is fucked up and bullshit

He'll run, and it's a good thing, because he seems like the only person in the Republican party that will take on the rilly big issue, which is do you want to pay low taxes and be on your own, or do you want to pay for a safety net? And where should we define the net?

Weaver -- Monday, February 28, 2011 -- 01:50:23 PM -- 26 of 2421

"rilly" is the the right word.

GregD -- Monday, February 28, 2011 -- 02:57:40 PM -- 27 of 2421
After the power to choose a man wants the power to erase. --Stephen Dunn

Daniels is revving up as well, doing more national media. Still my favorite on the right.

Weaver -- Monday, February 28, 2011 -- 03:32:33 PM -- 28 of 2421

Since you won't vote for him, why would we care?

Sadie -- Friday, March 04, 2011 -- 04:21:25 AM -- 29 of 2421
There is not enough WTF in all the land. -Alissa

Buddy Roemer?

Seems odd. There have been rumors about this locally for a while.

Nicholas Kronos -- Sunday, March 13, 2011 -- 05:15:07 AM -- 30 of 2421
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."

Michele Bachmann is considering a run? Seriously?

I could not vote for her. I'm not sure anyone's home.

If she were to get the nomination, it would be a Christine O'Donnell blowout.

CalGal -- Sunday, March 13, 2011 -- 05:04:36 PM -- 31 of 2421
I remember a time, back in the late 90s, when I thought nonsense like this mattered somewhat more than I do now. Now I see well-educated people yammering about the birth control choices of their daughters, or gay marriage, and I think they are morons.

Goldberg on the 2012 field

In the Corner, he also answered a critic who said "But you didn't mention Ron Paul!!!" Duh, says Goldberg.

The reason I didn’t mention him is precisely the reason Foy suspects: I don’t take Ron Paul serious as a presidential contender because (in my opinion) he isn’t one. He is the right’s version of Ralph Nader. The CPAC straw poll is entirely irrelevant to Paul’s chances in the primaries. As I’ve written several times Paul is not my favorite flavor of libertarian, but I liked having him in the race in 2008 because I always think libertarians are worth including in the conversation (hence the inclusion of libertarians in Proud to be Right). I guess I feel the same way this time around, but my overriding concern is that the GOP nominate a conservative who can beat Obama in 2012.

Please god.

Nicholas Kronos -- Sunday, March 13, 2011 -- 07:44:19 PM -- 32 of 2421
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."

Ron Paul is older than McCain. As bad as Obama is, the GOP Congress is enough to make sure he gets re-elected if the Republicans nominate a weak candidate.

It's just a fact that being President makes one seem presidential. Obama's biggest weakness the first time was his lack of experience. Next time he'll have the most experience of anyone in the race. And voters will know that the House is going to check him some, whereas a nutty Republican may wind up with both the House and Senate.

I would consider voting for Palin. She has two years to convince me. Bachmann...it's not possible.

[Paul] is the right’s version of Ralph Nader.

Kucinich.

CalGal -- Monday, April 04, 2011 -- 01:44:25 PM -- 33 of 2421
I remember a time, back in the late 90s, when I thought nonsense like this mattered somewhat more than I do now. Now I see well-educated people yammering about the birth control choices of their daughters, or gay marriage, and I think they are morons.

Why Hillary Must Run

I think the time for this is past, alas. If I were sure the Republicans would put up someone electable, I wouldn't care.

Pincher Martin -- Monday, April 04, 2011 -- 04:45:56 PM -- 34 of 2421
"Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible." -- George Orwell

You shouldn't care anyway. Obama and Hillary have no differences on the major issues.

As president, what would she do?

Would she try and repeal Obamacare?

Would she either stop or accelerate our Libya mission?

Would she bomb Iran?

Cut spending?

Balance the budget?

Put forward Supreme Court nominees of a different caliber and ideology than Obama's?

Get tough on border enforcement?

Demonstrate a competence in governing that Obama lacks?

*****

The assumption is that Hillary makes a difference somewhere. She doesn't. Not anywhere that it matters.

Look at John Phillips' comment here:

The military action in Libya is Team Hillary's 'I told you so' moment...with Hillary serving as the realistic, aggressive war hawk and Obama being a not-ready-for-prime-time waffler.
This frustration was expressed by a Clinton insider in the British newspaper The Daily, who said, "Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up...it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

So Team Hillary's recommendation for their favorite former presidential candidate is that Hillary would have taken decisive action against Gaddafi where Obama only dithered. This makes her a realistic and aggressive war hawk.

What does this mean? That, under a President Hillary, bombing would have started a week earlier (and at 3 am) than it did under Obama for an action we probably shouldn't have taken at all?

The rest of Phillips' column is about politics. Hillary is a more electable candidate in 2012 than Obama. Well, that's hardly a recommendation for her if you disagree with her politics and truly want to see a Republican win.

Nicholas Kronos -- Monday, April 04, 2011 -- 04:54:16 PM -- 35 of 2421
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."

One could argue that HRC would be more competent than Obama has been. And I do think she might be a little less extreme in her appointments. In terms of the big issues, she might actually work with a GOP-controlled House (and, hopefully, Senate) about a realistic approach to the fiscal train wreck. I'm not at all convinced that Obama even cares about it or knows enough to take it seriously: après moi le déluge.

(None of this means I think she's going to run, she would get the nomination if she did, or I would vote for her.)

Pincher Martin -- Monday, April 04, 2011 -- 05:28:36 PM -- 36 of 2421
"Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible." -- George Orwell

One could argue that HRC would be more competent than Obama has been....

One could make that argument. And one could make similar arguments. But they are not being made based on the evidence we have, but on speculation we can never be sure about.

Take competence in governing, for example. Is Hillary competent at State? Was she competent during the 2008 election campaign? Was she competent in the White House when she was running health care?

The only period of Hillary's professional political life where she has not demonstrated incompetence was her eight years in the Senate, and that is a place where you don't have to govern.

Pincher Martin -- Monday, April 04, 2011 -- 05:35:24 PM -- 37 of 2421
"Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible." -- George Orwell

Another example from our realistic and aggressive war hawk.

A lot of this stuff doesn't get much media attention and so we don't focus on it. But it shows her thinking is not as evolved as we might believe now that Republicans' negative energy is being directed at Obama.

Check Subscriptions   The Latest   First   Previous   Next   Recent   
Subscribe  
The Perfect World >> Politics >> Start your engines: Will we have a better choice of drivers in 2012?