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:
(All users will see what tags exist for a thread. Please tag carefully!)
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.
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.
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?
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: aprŤs moi le dťluge.
(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.
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.
I ask this question seriously: Is experience in Washington really what we are lacking right now?
So does the doofy dork Biden, who every day makes me pray for Obama's good health, even as he provides additional evidence of the great big black holes in Obama's judgment.
As far as Washington experience, no, because I'd vote for one of the GOP governors in a heartbeat over Obama. But between Obama and HRC it's relevant because--as your previous post highlighted--on many things they're similar. Moreover, if you're going to have a President who believes Washington, DC can solve most of the country's problems, it would be preferable to have one who actually knows something about how Washington works. (Likewise, if you have a President who proposes empowering states, it's better if he or she knows something about how states work.)
I don't know if it's a great recommendation for preferring Hillary over Obama that she would have made these shit sandwiches (like health care) go down better than he has. They're still shit sandwiches, so maybe it's better for us not to have them sugarcoated with a spoonful of honey. Ten years from now you are not going to care that it was Obama or Hillary who expanded health care coverage. You will only care that you are drowning in the sea of red that was created from the act.
I do agree she would have been modestly better in governing. I've mentioned that before. I also think she would have been easier to cow than he has been. For Republicans, that's another plus.
But ultimately as president she would have pushed the same range of policies that Obama has pushed them.
As I said, I wouldn't care at all if the Republicans would put up someone a) electable and b) reasonably tough on the issues. But if I'm stuck with a Dem president for 4 more years, I'd want Clinton over Obama.
You and Nick are both unable to break away from your past thinking about politics, a thinking which you share with many other Americans and which I believe is destructive to this country.
You keep wanting to recycle old names and failed political strategies. But a new paradigm is already shaping. Even if you manage to push in an old name like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush in 2012, it's not going to change anything. We will still have the problems of the last ten years, and we will still have politicians who are inadequate to addressing those problems because they are only armed with the failed political ideas which have put us in this losing battle in the first place.
You are so fixated on Barack Obama. But he's not the real problem. He's just the most visible symptom of the age. And it was the political ideas of the failed politicians of the past who put Obama in the presidency, who gave him any chance at all. Now you believe this hair-of-the-dog strategy is going to provide a cure. It's just insanity.
I'm not trying to be an asshole. I seriously believe that you guys hold on to failed political strategies and failed politicians because you can't learn from your own mistakes and from the country's mistakes. You too often look for confirmation of your own beliefs, or for a quick fix, instead of looking for what's right and good and then going out to find someone who'll help you realize what's right and good.
ok, so then WHO do you think can do this?
I know you believe it. You're just wrong.
I don't recall ever promoting Jeb Bush's candidacy at any time. As far as HRC goes, I was responding to your points, Pincher. You write...
...so you must be aware that you come off this way at times. And the reason is because you don't actually listen to what people say but transfer your preconceptions to them. You have some point you want to expound, and if what I say doesn't jibe with that, you manufacture some position on my behalf that allows you to hold forth and lecture.
I do not support Jeb Bush, and I certainly do not support Hillary Clinton.
You say of me...
Yet in starting this thread I wrote instead: "Will anyone run we can actually be excited about?" Does that sound like I look forward to a bunch of retreads? The first name I threw out--to your quick dismissal--was Jon Huntsman. Just now I mentioned favoring some of the fresh-faced Republican governors.
Now if you prefer a discussion of ideas to actual people, then that's fine, but you shouldn't be surprised that a thread about drivers (candidates) is going to focus on people.
Really, though, the main problem with almost any discussion with you is you invariably want to personalize it. In the Gay Politics thread, for example, it's all about Harri's lifestyle and who she knows. With Mayimadom everything is all about how she lives in New Jersey. (To be fair, she does reference personal experience herself from time to time in making her arguments.)
Of course I'm responding to you on a personal level now, too, but only in terms of how you are arguing. I don't believe I ever have referenced your Asian wife or your Marine Corps service or something like that as making you incapable of reasoning about issues in a wider fashion. I *know* I don't let such factors dominate how I read, interpret, and respond to every post you make.
Over the past year or so, though, I do think you've succeeded in making me read your posts with the preconception that what you really want to do is vent your frustrations with the current political world via haranguing people on a message board. That may not be the accurate case, but it is what causes you to come across as--in your word--an asshole, who I'd prefer to elide most of the time.
For example, in the post to which I'm responding, it would lose nothing to write this:
If Americans are unable to break away from their past thinking about politics, I believe recycling old names and failed political strategies will be destructive to this country. But a new paradigm is already shaping. Even if Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush could somehow be elected in 2012, it's not going to change anything. We will still have the problems of the last ten years, and we will still have politicians who are inadequate to addressing those problems because they are only armed with the failed political ideas which have put us in this losing battle in the first place.
Barack Obama is not the real problem. He's just the most visible symptom of the age. And it was the political ideas of the failed politicians of the past who put Obama in the presidency, who gave him any chance at all. Believing this hair-of-the-dog strategy is going to provide a cure. It's just insanity.
Yet what you are left with is fairly generic stuff, expounded at length. That is, "we can't nibble at the corners, but something big needs to happen--and may already be happening." By personalizing it to me and Cal, you may hope to draw us out through a sense of being attacked. What you have hurled, however, is a slush snowball that could target almost anyone with the charge of not being radical enough in their aims. The few bits of specificity--HRC and Bush--don't apply to me at all.
By the way, if I'm given a choice of *only* HRC and Obama in a hypothetical, and I say, "Okay, HRC," it's rhetorical entrapment to say, then, "You're not thinking outside the box enough." Surely if your premises are true--this change may already be occurring--then we'll be offered some other choice in 2012. I, for one, think there's a decent chance of a third-party candidate.