I think, with the landscape at this point bein very hazy as to who is in and who is out, Huntsman will be the nominee.
Foreign policy chops, especially re: China
Experience as a governor
Fiscal conservatism
Fairly moderate social stances (appeals to independents)
Weakness on cap and trade won’t be much of an issue, given that those issues have taken a backseat to more pressing problems
Photogenic
Did not implement RomneyCare - which, considering ObamaCare, is the ultimate albatross around Mitt’s neck
Bipartisan bona fides - served his country under a Democratic president (will make a nice contrast to a president that campaigned on the promise of “post-partisanship” but governed as a bitterly and peevishly partisan White House)
Haven’t heard much from him - need to measure his podium skills and town hall presence. But he looks to me like a winner.
I like much of what Paul says but he is in fantasy land regarding foreign policy. While he is right that the US military shouldn’t be all over the globe that seems to be the extent of his thoughts on the matter.
Like it or not the US is the world’s police. We need a plan to taper that down without causing chaos. I don’t see Paul as the man to do that.
His reaction to Osama’s killing was telling. He doesn’t understand we need to punish people like that even if the goals of withdrawing from the middle east are shared you cannot let terrorist attacks stand without reprisal.
No chance at being president. he should push for sound money, bringing troops home and stfu about everything else
If we were discussing the chances of a complete no one in the last election, an obscure senator with an outrageously left-leaning record, what would we have concluded? [/quote]
That’s actually not true. After GW’s popularity plummeted, it was a given that a democrat was going to be the next Commander and Chief. Very early on I assumed Hillary. But once the liberal establishment threw her under the bus for Obama the writing was on the wall. And then the liberal media kicked into high gear and it was a piece of cake predicting very early that Obama would be the next president.
[/quote]
ZEB, saying a Dem was going to win was a no-brainer at any point in the waning years of the Bush presidency. So that’s not saying much.
However, fortelling that Senator Obama was destined to be nominated - at this point - would have been absurd; at this point now, what did you really know about him, except that he gave a speech at the previous Dem convention? Not much. What had he achieved legislatively? In foreign policy? In fact, in any area of practical life? You would have said the same thing: “Obama is a bland non entity when it comes to winning the Presidency…a really poor candidate in every way.” And to my ears and eyes, Cain is far more impressive in every aspect of his person and abilities.
Maybe our difference is, I don’t really think getting “past Obama” - given the state of things and the extreme displeasure among independents with the currrent order - is as much of a hurdle as you think it is; if he were a normal incumbent in normal times, yes. But Obama is not a normal incumbent; and these are not normal times. Obama has practically out-Cartered Carter.
I really have no idea who will be nominated - I’m just not sure you can count a wild card like Cain out at this point
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
I like much of what Paul says but he is in fantasy land regarding foreign policy. While he is right that the US military shouldn’t be all over the globe that seems to be the extent of his thoughts on the matter.
Like it or not the US is the world’s police. We need a plan to taper that down without causing chaos. I don’t see Paul as the man to do that.
[/quote]
Yes, the US is the world’s police. Who cares if we can financially afford it. Sorry but most Americans are complete idiots.
George Will is already throwing down the proverbial gauntlet: “This is the most open scramble on the Republican side since 1940 when Wendell Willkie came out of the woodwork and swept the field,” Will said. “…people are complaining this is not off to a brisk start. I think that’s wrong. I think we know with reasonable certainty that standing up there on the West front of the Capitol on Jan. 20, 2013 will be one of three people: Obama, [former Minnesota Gov. Tim] Pawlenty and [Indiana Gov. Mitch] Daniels. I think that’s it.”
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
You would have said the same thing: “Obama is a bland non entity when it comes to winning the Presidency…a really poor candidate in every way.” [/quote]
Actually, that’s not at all true. When I saw him speak at the 04’ convention I was impressed. While I didn’t have any idea that he’d be the nominee in 08, I did think that we’d be seeing more of him. And the reason is, not only isn’t he bland, but Obama carries with him a supreme confidence that only a winner has. On top of that he’s young and a good speaker. And that’s the reason that the democrats gave him a front and center speaking roll at the 04 convention. And that’s the reason that he was elected to the Presidency.
That’s because you like Cain and what he has to say, he represents your values and where you want to see the country move. You are biased. You are not looking at him through the eyes of someone who has no particular political leanings (most of the country). People are moved in the final weeks of an election by pure charisma, speaking ability etc. Cain is a loser, not personally, but as a Presidential candidate. He will be lucky if he finishes ahead of Ron Paul. Who will most likely be last as he was in 08. But this year I do think that Paul will beat Pee Wee Herman.
First of all, we don’t have a Ronald Reagan hanging around to take out the incumbent. And even then I think Reagan only won by 5% or so. It was Mondale in 84 that he decimated.
Secondly, a bad President (which Obama is) can turn into a really good candidate, which Obama was and will be again. People have a short term memory. What wins elections? Good campaigns! He has the money and as the incumbent he can turn events in his favor. He can literally create momentum out of thin air.
Thirdly, the republican nominee will have to beat Obama plus the liberal media. This would take someone of the magnitude of Ronald Reagan, and as I’ve said we don’t have anyone like that. On the left they complain about FOX daily for being biased, which it is, obviously. But so are NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, CNBC, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, and even some of the non political media, all for Obama. I remember one of my fitness magazines showed up at my door 3 weeks prior to the 08 election with Obama on the front cover. Where was McCain? No balanced coverage they did what they wanted to do. Always keep in mind that it is Obama + the MSLM vs the republican candidate and FOX. And those are not good odds.
Finally, I’m not saying Obama cannot be defeated but I have not yet seen the ticket that can defeat him.
[quote]I really have no idea who will be nominated - I’m just not sure you can count a wild card like Cain out at this point
[/quote]
Well, he has a better chance than Ron Paul that’s for sure, but I don’t see him getting the nomination. And if by a strange miracle he did it would be the biggest landslide since Reagan pounded Mondale in 84.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
I like much of what Paul says but he is in fantasy land regarding foreign policy. While he is right that the US military shouldn’t be all over the globe that seems to be the extent of his thoughts on the matter.
Like it or not the US is the world’s police. We need a plan to taper that down without causing chaos. I don’t see Paul as the man to do that.
[/quote]
Yes, the US is the world’s police. Who cares if we can financially afford it. Sorry but most Americans are complete idiots.[/quote]
It’s not that they’re idiots. It’s that they care about their own little world. Jimmy needs braces, Donna is on the soccer team, and how to save for their retirement is what occupies their minds each day. And life is hard enough, they figure, without second guessing geo political events. Most of us on this forum know far more than the average American about political events. But with that said we don’t really have a clue of what’s actually happening when it comes to intricacies of politics and armed conflict across the globe. But, we do like to think that we know don’t we?
I just want a candidate who’ll tell us he has no chance in winning, because he’s not going to give us what we want or tell us what we want to hear. I want a candidate who’ll promise to raise taxes and actually cut spending (reforming entitlements for means testing, bumping age reqs., etc.).
I want him to take to task republican for pretending we can avoid bankrupting future generations with moderate cuts and zero tax raises. I want them stop pretending they could even get moderate cuts/reform without having to give up on tax raises. I want him to rake the democrats over the coals for demonizing a now undeniable reality–entitlements will need serious, deep cuts. Not even draconian tax raises will come close anymore.
I want him to spit at his feet and damn us for acting like team cheerleaders, clutching to party slogans at the expense of an old fashioned need to sacrifice (one and all), fix our long-term solvency, and oh, I don’t know…hand off the country better than we found it. Then, while I’m usually not one for vulgar displays, I’d cheer if he shot us all the bird on national TV, announced the end of his candidacy, and went back home to some working ranch or something. After all, it’d be a cold day in hades before we dropped this politics-as-team sport attitude, facing the reality of taxes will having to go up, and entitlement spending having to come down.
Argue over who has the prettiest smile and silkiest speaking voice, neither party runs honest to goodness leaders. LEADERS. None of 'em of are honest enough to tell us we’re ALL going to have to sacrifice. They’ve all got their no new taxes blocs, or their governmentally dependent blocs. Who cares who wins? The result will be roughly the same.
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< facing the reality of taxes having to go up, >>>[/quote]I am very surprised to hear you say this. Of the 2 terrible choices we have. Which are allowing businesses, that would pimp out their own children (of both sexes) for money, to spend their own in the hopes of more jobs and revenue or stealing even more of their profits in direct confiscation? Of those 2 choices I still go with the former. Neither is THE answer. This next generation coming up is the most self obsessed, hedonistic, narcissistic bunch of sniveling brats in this country’s history by a million miles. Suggest sacrifice in a high school or college campus and see what happens. Everybody will think it’s a great idea somebody else oughta do.
If the character of this nation is not born again, if the family where character is built (or not) is not once again made paramount, nothing, NOTHING else will matter. It’s all symptomatic. I know you agree.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I just want a candidate who’ll tell us he has no chance in winning, because he’s not going to give us what we want or tell us what we want to hear. I want a candidate who’ll promise to raise taxes and actually cut spending (reforming entitlements for means testing, bumping age reqs., etc.).
I want him to take to task republican for pretending we can avoid bankrupting future generations with moderate cuts and zero tax raises. I want them stop pretending they could even get moderate cuts/reform without having to give up on tax raises. I want him to rake the democrats over the coals for demonizing a now undeniable reality–entitlements will need serious, deep cuts. Not even draconian tax raises will come close anymore.
I want him to spit at his feet and damn us for acting like team cheerleaders, clutching to party slogans at the expense of an old fashioned need to sacrifice (one and all), fix our long-term solvency, and oh, I don’t know…hand off the country better than we found it. Then, while I’m usually not one for vulgar displays, I’d cheer if he shot us all the bird on national TV, announced the end of his candidacy, and went back home to some working ranch or something. After all, it’d be a cold day in hades before we dropped this politics-as-team sport attitude, facing the reality of taxes will having to go up, and entitlement spending having to come down.
Argue over who has the prettiest smile and silkiest speaking voice, neither party runs honest to goodness leaders. LEADERS. None of 'em of are honest enough to tell us we’re ALL going to have to sacrifice. They’ve all got their no new taxes blocs, or their governmentally dependent blocs. Who cares who wins? The result will be roughly the same.[/quote]
But you should keep in mind the rest of this as you are on a really good roll. And that is the people will not elect anyone who does what you suggest. Therefore, we get the types of leaders that we deserve.
Back on topic the very latest polls show that Ron Paul is in his usual running position, dead last. Even an insincere glory hound like Donald Trump has roughly twice the support of Ron Paul.
Does this cause any of the Paulies on this site to think twice before sending them their beer money?
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< facing the reality of taxes having to go up, >>>[/quote]I am very surprised to hear you say this. Of the 2 terrible choices we have. Which are allowing businesses, that would pimp out their own children (of both sexes) for money, to spend their own in the hopes of more jobs and revenue or stealing even more of their profits in direct confiscation? Of those 2 choices I still go with the former. Neither is THE answer. This next generation coming up is the most self obsessed, hedonistic, narcissistic bunch of sniveling brats in this country’s history by a million miles. Suggest sacrifice in a high school or college campus and see what happens. Everybody will think it’s a great idea somebody else oughta do.
If the character of this nation is not born again, if the family where character is built (or not) is not once again made paramount, nothing, NOTHING else will matter. It’s all symptomatic. I know you agree.
[/quote]
The long term solvency problem is so big we won’t be able to ‘grow’ our way out of it. It’ll have to be a combination of taxes and spending cuts. Besides, one should give up on the idea that government spending will shrink wihout being accompanied by tax increases.
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< facing the reality of taxes having to go up, >>>[/quote]I am very surprised to hear you say this. Of the 2 terrible choices we have. Which are allowing businesses, that would pimp out their own children (of both sexes) for money, to spend their own in the hopes of more jobs and revenue or stealing even more of their profits in direct confiscation? Of those 2 choices I still go with the former. Neither is THE answer. This next generation coming up is the most self obsessed, hedonistic, narcissistic bunch of sniveling brats in this country’s history by a million miles. Suggest sacrifice in a high school or college campus and see what happens. Everybody will think it’s a great idea somebody else oughta do.
If the character of this nation is not born again, if the family where character is built (or not) is not once again made paramount, nothing, NOTHING else will matter. It’s all symptomatic. I know you agree.
[/quote]
The long term solvency problem is so big we won’t be able to ‘grow’ our way out of it. It’ll have to be a combination of taxes and spending cuts. Besides, one should give up on the idea that government spending will shrink wihout being accompanied by tax increases.[/quote]
But it doesn’t have to be that way. We could cut enough to not have to raise taxes. This would also help the economy move along in the right direction. But of course politically somehow the democrats will cast anyone making over a couple a hundred grand as evil and at some point the republicans will cave and yeah, taxes will go up as well. And that will slow economic growth.
The fact that ZEB is so vociferous about his opinion of Paul shows just how scared he is. Someone that was not worried would not spend a so much time making sure you “twentysomehings” know how much of a chance he doesn’t have.
Does this cause any of the Paulies on this site to think twice before sending them their beer money? [/quote]
Nope, all the beer money has been earmarked for Kool-Aid.
[/quote]
Ha, nice one and very true. But you must realize that the only reason he can’t win is that the corporate media and in general the establishment is holding him down.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The fact that ZEB is so vociferous about his opinion of Paul shows just how scared he is. Someone that was not worried would not spend a so much time making sure you “twentysomehings” know how much of a chance he doesn’t have.
[/quote]
Yeah, either that or I think it’s kind of funny and am trying to get more traction out of it. One or the other huh?
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
I like much of what Paul says but he is in fantasy land regarding foreign policy. While he is right that the US military shouldn’t be all over the globe that seems to be the extent of his thoughts on the matter.
Like it or not the US is the world’s police. We need a plan to taper that down without causing chaos. I don’t see Paul as the man to do that.
His reaction to Osama’s killing was telling. He doesn’t understand we need to punish people like that even if the goals of withdrawing from the middle east are shared you cannot let terrorist attacks stand without reprisal.
No chance at being president. he should push for sound money, bringing troops home and stfu about everything else[/quote]
He’s the most sane person regarding foreign blackmail…I mean policy.
He actually understands, unlike most of you, that punishment doesn’t really work on adults and comes with a whole bunch of backlash.
