Hmm… I’ve gotten fairly disillusioned. I’d vote for anybody with a responsible deficit reduction plan. I think Paul Ryan might be all right. Maybe Romney? He certainly has organizational skills.
I didn’t have much personal affection for Bob Barr but that’s not really what third parties are for – they’re mostly for picking up enough of a minority to send a message. (That said, I think by now most of the libertarian-ish momentum is with the Republicans.)
I don’t think Hillary could run against Obama because that would be a terrible intra-administration scandal. He’s a shoo-in for the nomination.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Hmm… I’ve gotten fairly disillusioned. I’d vote for anybody with a responsible deficit reduction plan. I think Paul Ryan might be all right. Maybe Romney? He certainly has organizational skills.
I didn’t have much personal affection for Bob Barr but that’s not really what third parties are for – they’re mostly for picking up enough of a minority to send a message. (That said, I think by now most of the libertarian-ish momentum is with the Republicans.)
I don’t think Hillary could run against Obama because that would be a terrible intra-administration scandal. He’s a shoo-in for the nomination.[/quote]
I understand your position with Paul Ryan. “At least he’s serious!” right. This is understandable. However, I don’t think his plan seriously looks at political realities. As Bruce Bartlett wrote in Forbes
[quote]In short, the core of Ryan’s proposal is to implement George W. Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security, which got virtually no public support even when the stock market was booming, and essentially abolish Medicare altogether while raising taxes on the health benefits of most workers. He basically assumes that the market for health insurance would somehow adjust to prevent a significant cut in the quality of health care.
The Ryan plan is, of course, politically ludicrous. It would be impossible to get Congress to even implement one of its major provisions, let alone all of them simultaneously. And I say this as someone who in principle supports many of the ideas in his plan. For example, I believe we must raise the retirement age, and it’s hard to see how we can meaningfully reform the health system to reduce cost inflation as long as health insurance is free of taxation. But I don’t delude myself that it is possible to implement such changes absent a major transformation in political attitudes or conditions that do not now exist.[/quote]
I don’t know much about Romney’s budget plans…has he put one out?
Re: Hillary. Obama would have to step aside for Hillary to run.
One thing is for sure…everyone who plans to seriously run in 2012 will have to “reveal their hand” (even Palin) during the first part of 2011…and that ain’t too far off, folks.
The Organization and money needed to run even a STATEWIDE campaign has become staggering…so you can imagine the expense and complexity of a National one. It takes a year or more just to get the organization IN PLACE…much less up-and-running.
Those whom have run before (Huckabee, Romney,) will have an advantage of not having to start from square one…but even they have a difficult task ahead of them.
Hillary is intriguing, but doubtful…it really all depends on what Obama does do.
The GOP “favorite” is anyone’s guess at this point.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
It’s a sad day in America when we care more about voting a guy OUT of office than we do voting someone else IN. Are those who want Obama out going to vote for the best person to knock him out, or the best person for the Presidency?[/quote]
I don’t think that it will so much be a “person” whom will “knock the President out”…as much as it will be the circumstances. And I think that these are the circumstances that will do it:
The Economy
Jobs (or lack thereof)
The Economy
Jobs (or lack thereof)
The way to play it for the GOP over the next two years will be a) blaming Obama for the mess and b) stating that they are “trying” to fix things, but the President is obstructing them.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
It’s a sad day in America when we care more about voting a guy OUT of office than we do voting someone else IN. Are those who want Obama out going to vote for the best person to knock him out, or the best person for the Presidency?[/quote]
Let me get to the heart of the matter as succinctly as I can - I’d vote for anyone of either party over Obama. I cannot think of even one thing I like about the guy politically. He does the exact opposite, on virtually every matter, than what I’d consider a good President to do.
I would far prefer Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton for that matter. I would vote for any of the other leading candidates from either party over that clown. He’s the worst thing that has ever occupied the White House.
[quote]BBriere wrote:
LBJ was facing backlash from Vietnam, outrage over some of his social programs, and the fraction of his Democratic party. He wasn’t even assured of winning the Democratic nomination for president. Obama isn’t facing quite as much. Some in the Democratic party have mentioned running against him, but I doubt he will face too many dissenters. He is an idealouge. He’ll run again.[/quote]
Hold on there, we are only 2 years into his administration he could screw up just as bad as LBJ and not run again. But you are right he is an idealouge.
[/quote]
Very true. Consider the fact that after two terms of Kennedy/Johnson, Democrats only got 4 out nearly 30 years in the White House between 1969 and 1993. That time span even included 12 years for Nixon/Ford! I’m not sure that even Obama can turn people so vehemently against the Democratic party, but I think he’s trying.
I’m not really for one side or the other. I consider myself a conservative, but I’ll have to say that typically the Democrats live up to their promises more than many Republicans. Obama has fought for many of the issues that I disagree with such as increased spending, the health care bill, abortion, gay rights, etc. like he said he would. A lot of Republicans claim to be against those things but always seem to back down when it matters.[/quote]
I think your statement makes it more interesting that the last two Presidents that balanced the budget where Democrats . Johnson and Clinton[/quote]
Very true. I know Clinton was somewhat controlled by a Republican congress. I have no idea about Johnson (wasn’t alive). What’s funny is that Dole had run in 1996 on a balanced budget platform which was one of the things that cost him the election with seniors. My grandparents for instance voted Clinton because Dole had mentioned Social Security cuts as part of the balanced budget.[/quote]
I agree that hurt him. But really cost him the election was that he moved like a robot and acted like he was 100 years old.
[/quote]
I don’t think he was acting. I think he fought in the Mexican-American war.