Who Beats Obama in 2012. 1st GOP debate is in 6 weeks. Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Willy SM, a resident of Atherton, on Mar 19, 2011 at 1:15 pm
FCalled nefarious names by some parts of our society, often frustrating the left of his own party, the question arises: Who will beat Obama in 2012?
As frustrated as the Radical Left is with him, one assumes there will be no serious challenger in the Democratic primaries.
The hope, for those on these boards that detest Barack Hussein Obama Web Link , is to see a credible challenger survive the Republican primaries unscathed, in the eyes of those crucial, middle of the road, independents.
A credible candidate should be able to sweep against an incumbent many believe to be political weakling, inexperienced, a socialist, a marxist, beholden to the UN, author of the unpopular ObamaCare. Almost half of GOP primary voters believe Barack Hussein Obama wasn't even born in this country and not even eligible for the office. Web Link
Should be an easy race to win, to unseat the first African American POTUS.
The first Republican debate is scheduled at the Reagan library on May 2nd. Web Link At this point in the last cycle, every major candidate had announced and was actively campaigning.
Who's running? Many are undeclared at this point. Some have formed exploratory committees.
* Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota
* Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi
* Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton of Maryland
* Talk show host Herman Cain of Georgia
* Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey
* Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana
* Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich of Georgia
* Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York
* Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas
* U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, Jr.
* Former Governor and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin of Alaska
* Representative Ron Paul of Texas
* Former Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota
* Former Governor Buddy Roemer of Louisiana
* Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts
* Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania
* Senator John Thune of South Dakota
* Businessman Donald Trump of New York
Which will win the Californian GOP primary? Who will the victorious GOP candidate be? Who will take the oath in January, 2013?
Posted by Bruce, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2011 at 10:05 am
I threw up in my mouth a little bit just reading your right-wing rant. I'd take Barack Obama over any of those names in a heartbeat. Obama is a confident, intelligent, courageous and honorable leader that I am very proud to call President and will gladly vote for again in 2012. Sorry, but your obvious intolerance and propaganda links won't sway logical voters. Thankfully, people like Willy SM are not the norm, especially in forward-thinking California.
Posted by Willy SM, a resident of Atherton, on Mar 20, 2011 at 11:31 am
The questions weren't focused for you, as a Democrat, since you won't be selecting any of the above in a primary. Just curious, to move beyond your knee-jerk reaction: if you could have any Dem run besides BHO, who would it be? Someone more progressive?
The above was not a right wing rant. I purposefully did not state whether I subscribe to any of the points brought up AS EXAMPLES.
The Conservapedia link was to illustrate where some of the Right is coming from. Even I freely admit, as birthers, they're whacked. The other links are just factual (actual poll info, date of debate, etc...)
The question is valid: who do Bay Area conservatives like?
Based on the response here, by default, I guess they accept Barack Obama.
Maybe the first two respondents will go for a Charlie Sheen ticket.
Posted by Bruce, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Unfortunately you reveal too much about your political bias with words like "nefarious," "detest," "weakling," "socialist" and "marxist," not to mention the right-wing cheap shot -- consistently using his middle name, presumably to invoke subconscious images of some unfounded Islamic connection. And your phrase "Should be an easy race to win, to unseat the first African American POTUS" comes off as a bit racist.
That being said, your second comment is more level-headed than the first, so I'll do my best to respond.
I prefer politicians that can and will help bring the two parties closer together, i.e. someone who can tread the middle, understand compromise and commitment, and bridge the gulf-size gap between Republicans and Democrats, Liberals and Conservatives. Many of the politicians on your list -- such as Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich -- would not be able to do that. Others -- like Donald Trump (though he's terribly under-qualified) -- may.
Obama, I feel, is STARTING to do that, but it's definitely a tough road to hoe. The two people I'd really like to see run in 2012 are Al Gore, whose environmental prowess could prove pivotal in this day and age, and Colin Powell, whose intelligence and knowledge of foreign affairs would be enormous assets.
Posted by Willy SM, a resident of Atherton, on Mar 20, 2011 at 1:10 pm
"Many of the politicians on your list " Was a copy and pasted list. I purposely have not stated a preference for the context of this thread.
"I prefer politicians that can and will help bring the two parties closer together"
Personally disagree. Go left or right; I detest the middle of the road waffling, and I think Americans generally do, that's why you see so few moderates Republicans and the Blue Dog Dems got trashed last year. For example, government is either best as big or small, I don't think there is a happy medium. Iraq was correct or not - no middle. Social issues: gay, abortion, etc.. Personally, I think folks need to learn the issue and take a real stand. Political compromise is necessary at times, but the parties do not need to be closer. IMHO.
"..your political bias with words like.." Again: re-read the statements and ascertain whether they reflect the political landscape on the Right, or whether they are expressed as viewpoints. For example, according to the poll listed, how does one not take into account birtherism? It's absurd, but it's there. I hope many conservatives are offended by it, but so few seem to object.
I think George Will did a couple weeks ago, but it gets drowned out, to the detriment of the GOP, when it comes to wooing the independents.
Independents - my favorites, when it comes to the aforementioned middle-of-the-roaders.
Not. Pick a side, even if the particular party offends you. Pick a side and work to change it.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Bruce, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood
> I prefer politicians that can and will help bring the two parties closer together
This is kind of sad, kind of how appeasement gets going and snowballs ... there is no working together with the current culture of Republicanism.
It would be nice to dream up a nice perfect candidate like Obama perhaps seemed, but ever as he approaches compromise and on occasion outdoes Republicans he is attacked and pilloried for even making the effort.
The attempt to find a middle course when one side is discontinuous and at war with the country is going to lead to the same thing appeasement led to in Europe in the last century.
It is not middle of the road waffling that is the problem, there is disagreement, or perceived disagreement between two halves of America - not something that can be resolved democratically by going right or left - and that fracture does not come about by honest disagreement, is generated by media and economic coercion by the top half which still can rally enough economic and political power to fool and override the majority of citizens.
It used to be the "truth would out" ... but I guess that is just a relic of Shakespeare's day anymore.
Posted by Bruce, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2011 at 2:44 pm
I'm sorry, but I don't live in a world where I feel like my way is THE right way, or that I am somehow more important or more valuable than others in society. Finding a middle ground isn't about appeasement or waffling. It is the understanding that goals are achieved through cooperation, that our country is (for the most part) split between two groups with different ideals, and that society flourishes when there is more compromise than discord. There has been a tremendous amount of discord in this country -- especially recently -- and look where we are: War, recession, distrust, corruption, environmental ignorance and so on.
If we blindly hold fast to our convictions without taking the time for empathy, understanding and curiosity, we might as well be knee deep in quicksand.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2011 at 3:48 pm
>> It is the understanding that goals are achieved through cooperation, that our country is (for the most part) split between two groups with different ideals, and that society flourishes when there is more compromise than discord
Oh, that is so true. I feel that the reason for this huge split between the population is because there is no cooperation possible. We have evolved into a highly political society where power expects submission, (and people expect democracy), but power does not care about buy-in, cooperation, education, investment, explanation. When it doesn't get it power does not question itself, it finds a stronger way to make its case and ultimately force its case. As Karl von Clausewitz said, war/terrorism is the continuation of politics by other means. Ultimately in terms of weaponry and power the government can always win it's just a question of how ruthless they intend to be. Khaddafy is a great model here and now.
Cooperation requires respect and equals ... something the right seems to have contempt for.
Cooperation requires listening and thought, something the left seems to be challenged to do.
The fallibilities of both sides are understandable but it is the people who have a God given right to have a responsive government of to overthrow it and the government that does not have a right to attack its people.
Our schism could be worked out ... except negotiating differences itself requires cooperation and compromise and that is asymmetrically the right that refuses to acknowledge.
Since we are having escalations in magnitude of these divisive political experiences I feel fairly confident that this admittedly simplistic model of political reality in the US is a workable model. To keep the system form exploding some sophisticated expensive and risky attempts are made to manipulate people into submission (read about the Pentagon's Ntrepid project) - ie. Big Brother is online), but these just make the problem worse, as we know from the measures taken in less technological authoritarian-totalitarian societies when they push things to the breaking point.
Posted by what is the Tea Party, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Tea Party leaders try to claim that their only political issue is cutting the budget. The comments in this thread demonstrate that is a hoax. The real Tea Party issues are destroying gay rights, destroying women's rights, destroying racial minority rights, destroying religious rights, destroying immigrant rights. The budget is just a smoke screen. As long as the Republicans try to define themselves via these "social conservative" issues, the Democrats will have zero interest in "compromise". We will continue to have the government logjam that we have had since George Bush took power.
* Willard Mitt Romney passed romneycare in Mass, virtually identical to obmamacare - toast. Also: as a Mormon, he has to explain to the Christian right the concept of his alter-ego on planet Xolog or whatever the LDS call it. Funny thing, Mitt would have done WAY better in 2008 than Gramps did, but even Mitt can't beat Obama now.
That leaves Christie, who could make it past the primary to the general, if he reneges on his promises not to run. Interesting possibility, we'll see what the landscape for GOP governors is after all the Scott Walker hullabaloo.
But the serious candidates will get clobbered by the cartoon characters on the list:
* Palin: She'll tear them apart, already forcing Paw(snore)lenty miles to the right. The chant you hear: "Run, Sarah, run!" is from the LEFT.
* Newt: Geez, his latest - his "I slept around on *all* my wives because I love America" is priceless. Where are the local posters who blasted Edwards? Well guys, I never heard you blast Newt.
* Rudy: are ya kidding? Still love how Biden, of all people, nailed him. "Mr Noun, Verb and 9/11". Sheesh.
* Haley: did he address his racism with the Calif GOP this weekend?
* Bachman and Bolton: Oh, please, please run! The entertainment value alone!
* Huck: Really likable guy, up until he condescended to the birthers last month. Sorry to see him balloon back up, too. Only in it because he HATES the Mitt-ster. After he sinks Mittens, he quits after South Carolina. Loves the money from the Fox gig.
* Huntsman: as they said this weekend at the GOP event: "who?" Worked for Obama. Toast, if he ever gets as far as the toaster.
* Santorum: Ahhh, Ricky and his google problem. Funny. Just google the guy's full name. Dan Savage must have read Mad magazine as a kid.
The GOP's inability to police out the whack jobs reassures Obama of another term. The "cartoons" kill the few serious contenders who think they can buck the polls and compete with Obama.
Oh, well. When's the last time any of us were really happy with our President?
Posted by maguro_01, a resident of Mountain View, on Mar 23, 2011 at 4:31 am
It's puzzling that no one has mentioned the system that underlies our nominal political system - that is Washington and state capitol Pay-To-Play. AFAIK, medical care, the financial sector, and the US trade deficit together are eating, and misallocating, nearly 30% US GDP. That is a staggering burden to a recovering economy and hardly came from a market system - it's a result of Pay-To-Play politics.
No one mentioned that 2001-2009 the US standard of living was hyped with borrowed foreign money and the duty of the present US President is to stick a pin in that balloon. No one mentioned that the last guy hocked the US future in China to fund ventures in war and geopolitics and experiments in deregulation that were apparently disastrous, expensive failures. His party successors take no responsibility, indicate no lessons learned, and next time will apparently drive us off the same cliff faster.
Today's Republicans are not Conservatives. The only ones who count are Confederates, Libertarians, Tea Party people who aren't witches, or unclassifiable cranks. Can we imagine sending any of them to negotiate with Hu or Putin? In fact electing another government like 2001-2009 or worse might result in UN demand for US nuclear disarmament and a convention to put together another arrangement for a reserve currency. The US would be perceived as broken or breaking up and maybe it would be. Putting together the southeastern states and the rest into one country - two very different culture areas - was always a dicey business.
That we have no Jefferson's Wall in the Constitution between money and politicians may have come from the fact that the oligarchic slave states needed no such wall for their societies to survive at all. The lack of that wall has damaged our country for all this time and at long last may have eroded away most other political processes in Washington. The world doesn't listen to the US that much about Democracy any more. They look more to China for a development model, after all they did beat up the US in the economic wars.
But contempt doesn't win elections, indeed, combined with complacency it may lose them. And if we don't fix Pay-To-Play we don't have much of a future.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of Atherton, on Mar 23, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Here you go, you wild guys and gals!!
We have the FIRST announced GOP candidate:
"Karger was the first to announce he was seriously considering running for President on April 10, 2010 at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans and the first to establish a Presidential Exploratory Committee on July 18, 2010. He was the first to run commercials in New Hampshire right after Labor Day last year, the first to run an Iowa commercial right after the November midterm elections and the first to hire a State Director in Iowa on December 1, 2010. So it only stands to reason that Karger would be the first to file for the Republican nomination for President."
Since there isn't a rightie in in this forum with the guts to "come out" and support anyone else from that list at the top, I guess Fred Karger is it.
Looks like bay area conservatives have folded up their tents and moved to Oklahoma. No one left.
Or at least, no one willing to defend the whack jobs GOPpers running in 2012.
So we get Fred at the Reagan library debating himself in a month.
It will be particularly fun to watch the social issues being debated, especially...
Gay rights. Imagine MAD Magazine's take on it:
Moderator: "let's ask the panel what you think of 'the gay' "
Fred Karger (alone on stage as the only announced candidate): "I love 'em!!"
Moderator: "Okay, well that's all we have here, so score one for the 'light in the loafer' crowd, since three-timer Newt, two-timer Rudy, Rick "search my name on google" Santorium, and the rest haven't the you-know-whats to declare yet."
Moderator: "Thanks to our only GOP contestant for playing tonight."
Camera pans out, and the conservative moderator goes to shake Fred K's hand and whispers: "so, fella, how long ya in town for?"
Your new GOP.
From the rest of the paragraph quoted above: "Oh, yeah, Fred would also be the first openly gay candidate to run for President in history."
The GOP's only announced 2012 candidate is the first openly gay candidate for president in US history. He has more guts than Newt, Sarah and all the rest! Web Link
How wonderful is that? God bless him. President Obama, you may have just lost part of the gay vote!
Posted by Willy SM, a resident of Atherton, on Mar 24, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Michelle Bachman announces she might announce in June. Funny, I thought decisiveness was a prerequisite for president.
Newt, who also is waffling on announcing officially, probably doesn't want the job, just wants to boost his speaking fees. Perhaps higher income means more (youknowwhataguylikeNewtwants) on the side. He remembers well what Dr K said about power.
Posted by Willy SM, a resident of Atherton, on Mar 26, 2011 at 11:32 am
Uh, oh, the mainstream media is waking up to the question:
"Much has been written about the weakness of the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate field but what I think might be most remarkable about the leading quartet of Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich is that they've all become more unpopular and by quite a good bit since we started monthly national 2012 polling in April of 2009.
The fact that the more Americans are exposed to them, the less they like them certainly does not bode well for their competitiveness next year."
Conservatives: no one even bothers to defend?
Do we really pave the way for Obama to re-take the oath of office?
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of Atherton, on Mar 27, 2011 at 10:45 am
Your favorite, Michelle Bachman may have to compete with RAND Paul, not Ron Paul, in a month or two.
Rand has been a Senator for 3 months, so it'll be interesting to hear the hysterical right's response. Given that they trashed Obama, who served 7 years as a state senator and 3 at the federal level, as TOTALLY INEXPERIENCED, how will the whack job fringe righties accept a guy with a whopping three MONTHS experience.
No votes on foreign policy issues. No votes on job creation. A single vote on budget issues.
But he has voted against Planned Parenthood and NPR!!
Why, good golly miss molly, good lawdy almighty, katie bar the door, this guy is PERFECT!!!
Perfectly unbeleivable how BAD the GOP bench is this time around.
"But it was still a little surprising when Paul, in the Senate less than three months, said last week that he was likely to run for president in 2012 if his father, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, 75, didn't restart the campaign he ran in 2007-08. An adviser to both Pauls told Politico Friday morning that the father would decide in “the next month or two.”
The Pauls' timing and maneuvering coincides with that of Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who is competing with Rand Paul for congressional leadership of the tea party, the largely Republican group that he trumpets in his campaign biography, The Tea Party Goes to Washington."
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Mar 28, 2011 at 9:25 am
Michelle Bachman hands down is my favorite of all the "exploratory committees".
November 2012 is still far away, we will have to wait to see who else rises up. Will take a brave, articulate and thoughtful person, with a long, consistent and persistent constitutional conservative history, who appoints a strong foreign policy VP candidate.
The one who is firm on American Exceptionalism and sovereignty, firm on closing our borders, getting out of any "confict" that has no strategic interest to the USA and no clear plan to win, and who is firm on becoming oil/energy independent through drill, drill, drill and nuclear plants here in the USA so that we can stay out of the Middle East, who is for a balanced budget amendment, and insists we follow our Constitution above emotion/expanded nanny state ( thus eradicate Obamacare and go back to solutions that work)..that is the one who wins.
So far, nobody but Bachmann comes close. The rest are either wishy washy, in it for financial gain, have no experience at all, or are like McCain, inspiring the base to stay home and let a Democrat destroy the country over voting in a big government RINO who would do what Bush/ruling RINOs did to the Repub brand. Given that choice, better a Democrat than a RINO. Let the Left wing "own" the results.
On the other hand, I am tempted to vote for anyone out of the phone book at this point over any democrat.
Huckabee, Trump, Romney Set Pace for 2012 GOP Field
Donald Trump debuts in a first-place tie in Gallup's latest update of Republicans' preferences for the party's 2012 presidential nomination among potential contenders. Trump ties Mike Huckabee at 16%, with Mitt Romney close behind at 13%. Sarah Palin is the only other potential Republican candidate to earn double-digit support.
Bachman's turning into toast at the hands of the Texas miracle man who thinks Social Security is unconstitutional.
Mitt is still so incredibly tone deaf that he announces he's bulldozing his $12 million estate to rebuild it to make it big enough for his needs. But no worries, next week he'll flip his mind on it.
Sarah still has her bus and shows up to add some drama from any event that threatens to make news. Last week's Iowa straw poll? Here comes the Sarah "family vacation" bus!! Paid for by contributions. Silly me, isn't your vacation bus paid for by your PAC?
How crazy are these guys?
Asked if they would take a ten to one deal of cuts to taxes, they all refused!
Would any of them take a deal with TRILLIONS in cuts against the poor and middle class and working Americans coupled with 10% of that being tax adjustments? 10-1? Nope. They want it ALL.
"For those who can’t watch clips online, Baier phrased it this way: “I’m going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage. Say you had a deal, a real spending cuts deal, 10-to-1, as Byron said, spending cuts to tax increases…. Who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?”
All eight candidates raised their hand. Literally all of them, if offered a debt-reduction deal that’s 10-to-1 in their favor, would simply refuse."
Compare to a few months ago?
"Let’s note for context that in March — just five months ago — Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee released a report on deficit reduction. In it, House GOP officials outlined their ideal cuts-to-revenue ratio, and concluded that “successful” attempts at deficit reduction meet this goal: “85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases.” Roughly speaking, that’s about a 5-to-1 ratio in Republicans’ favor — and this is what GOP officials characterized as their ideal earlier this year." Web Link