Start your engines: Will we have a better choice of drivers in 2012?
Nicholas Kronos -- Monday, January 31, 2011 -- 05:44:24 PMThe 2012 presidential campaign--you know it's coming and starting already. Will anyone run we can actually be excited about?
This thread is tagged:(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
Pass the popcorn:
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.
Really? You'd have married the guy in the first place given his history, and expect us to believe you'd get tough then?
Galston says that Obama plans on his fringe base, and doesn't think that will work.
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?
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.
In the Corner, he also answered a critic who said "But you didn't mention Ron Paul!!!" Duh, says Goldberg.
Please god.
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.
Kucinich.
I think the time for this is past, alas. If I were sure the Republicans would put up someone electable, I wouldn't care.
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:
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.
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.)
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.
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.
The health care debacle was almost 20 years ago, but I don't know that HRC would be more competent than Obama. The biggest reason I would expect that she would be is his performance thus far. For example, she seems more detail-oriented and work-driven than Obama is. She has many more years experience in Washington than he does.
Now, if one disagrees with what she would try to do, that's not necessarily a positive thing. In an election between Michele Bachmann and HRC and given a GOP legislature, however, I would probably vote for HRC. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, maybe I stay home.
So it's only at the fringes that it makes a difference to me, but I'm not exactly a swing voter.