US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Ithekro]

Ron Paul is only mentioned twice and yet has the more prominate "Vote for" sign in the picture. Lot of talk about Huntsman (who they say is essentially second...even though he is actually third...behind Ron Paul)., Romney and Newt squaring off over something.

[Targus]

Originally Posted by Noi

I think I'll go Obama again this year, this years candidates seem duller than 08's.

I wouldn't do that, not after he passed the NDAA. He says otherwise, but he may just act on it.

[Vexx]

I tend to favor Huntsman because of his intelligence, foreign experience, the fact he speaks more than one language - I think he'd give Obama more of a run in any debate. Ron Paul vs Obama would certainly be an interesting decision point for the country and probably give Wall Street cardiac arrest. The rest are either dangerous ignorant crazy or corrupt empty corporate suits. Well.. they're all corporatist but some with more clue about a functioning consumer society than others.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Vexx

This is hilarious ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/us...er=rss&emc=rss

Now that's just blatant. So is the GOP trying to shut down anti-Romney arguments from his competitors now?
Then they might as well just cancel the Primaries all together, make Romney the candidate, and get it over with. It would save some money.

Romney only has support of 25% of the GOP, at best. Trying to shelter him from criticism would just make everyone else even more pissed off and end up staying home on election day.

As the discussion in your link mentioned, Obama had to survive a long battle with Clinton before he could try to be President, and he came out stronger for it. Sheltering Romney is not wise.

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Targus

I wouldn't do that, not after he passed the NDAA. He says otherwise, but he may just act on it.

And what could he do otherwise? Veto the entire NDAA and put the whole defence budget in turmoil? It's not his fault that the Congress lumped the evil part with a bill that no sane president would veto. Obama was set up in a lose-lose situation to either politically suicide by vetoing, or sign the NDAA with the evil stuff. And the real winner was his opponents who literally forced him to sign a bill that his supporters don't like.

Good job falling for the dirty trick.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

And what could he do otherwise? Veto the entire NDAA and put the whole defence budget in turmoil? It's not his fault that the Congress lumped the evil part with a bill that no sane president would veto. Obama was set up in a lose-lose situation to either politically suicide by vetoing, or sign the NDAA with the evil stuff. And the real winner was his opponents who literally forced him to sign a bill that his supporters don't like.

Good job falling for the dirty trick.

he should have veto it then call out the republicans on voting something no libertarians would like.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I tend to favor Huntsman because of his intelligence, foreign experience, the fact he speaks more than one language - I think he'd give Obama more of a run in any debate. Ron Paul vs Obama would certainly be an interesting decision point for the country and probably give Wall Street cardiac arrest. The rest are either dangerous ignorant crazy or corrupt empty corporate suits. Well.. they're all corporatist but some with more clue about a functioning consumer society than others.

I like Huntsman's background and his policies aren't bad either, but his debate performances so far have been a bit underwhelming. He's been playing to much out of the republican playbook.

I think he's a bit too ... intellectual for republicans to get behind. I mean, what would the average republican voter think of the fact he speaks Chinese? Of the fact that he's been outside the country for long periods for reasons that don't include military service? He doesn't really appeal to any of the republican core demographics. He doesn't appeal to the religious right (supported Civil Unions when governor, is pro evolution), he's a bit too diplomatic to appeal to the Military hawks, and while his relations with business aren't too bad, he's never really come across as the capitalist cheerleader that other candidates have been, not only that but he's even been a sponsor of environmentalist initiatives, and is a believer in global warming too.

I could see him making it as candidate for Vice president, or making an excellent secretary of state. Though if it was a Romney win, and he picked Huntsman as VP, it would be somewhat odd having two mormons running together. That might put off the evangelicals. However I could see a Paul/Huntsman pairing being quite interesting. Huntsman would take a little edge off Paul, make him more palateable to the mainstream. Huntsman would also make a good VP as he's not really the type to upstage the presidential candidate.

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

he should have veto it then call out the republicans on voting something no libertarians would like.

How long can the military continue its normal operation if the NDAA is not signed?

Besides, didn't the bill pass 98-1 in the Senate? I recall the veto can be overruled by a 2/3 majority. So if Obama vetoed it, he'd be blamed for sabotaging the defence budget and still failed to stop it becoming law. There just wasn't a winning situation for him.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

How long can the military continue its normal operation if the NDAA is not signed?

Besides, didn't the bill pass 98-1 in the Senate? I recall the veto can be overruled by a 2/3 majority. So if Obama vetoed it, he'd be blamed for sabotaging the defence budget and still failed to stop it becoming law. There just wasn't a winning situation for him.

the let the Senate over ride the veto. If Obama actually cares about civil liberties he would be running against Congress on this issue.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I like Huntsman's background and his policies aren't bad either, but his debate performances so far have been a bit underwhelming. He's been playing to much out of the republican playbook.

I think he's a bit too ... intellectual for republicans to get behind. I mean, what would the average republican voter think of the fact he speaks Chinese? Of the fact that he's been outside the country for long periods for reasons that don't include military service? He doesn't really appeal to any of the republican core demographics. He doesn't appeal to the religious right (supported Civil Unions when governor, is pro evolution), he's a bit too diplomatic to appeal to the Military hawks, and while his relations with business aren't too bad, he's never really come across as the capitalist cheerleader that other candidates have been, not only that but he's even been a sponsor of environmentalist initiatives, and is a believer in global warming too.

I could see him making it as candidate for Vice president, or making an excellent secretary of state. Though if it was a Romney win, and he picked Huntsman as VP, it would be somewhat odd having two mormons running together. That might put off the evangelicals. However I could see a Paul/Huntsman pairing being quite interesting. Huntsman would take a little edge off Paul, make him more palateable to the mainstream. Huntsman would also make a good VP as he's not really the type to upstage the presidential candidate.

Yeah, that would be an interesting combination to appeal to the independents. <shrug> we'll see how it goes.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Now that's just blatant. So is the GOP trying to shut down anti-Romney arguments from his competitors now?
Then they might as well just cancel the Primaries all together, make Romney the candidate, and get it over with. It would save some money.

Of course, didn't you know? Good ol' Mittens is the GOP's anointed one this time around. Karl Rove wished it so.

[monir]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I think he's a bit too ... intellectual for republicans to get behind. I mean, what would the average republican voter think of the fact he speaks Chinese? Of the fact that he's been outside the country for long periods for reasons that don't include military service? He doesn't really appeal to any of the republican core demographics. He doesn't appeal to the religious right (supported Civil Unions when governor, is pro evolution), he's a bit too diplomatic to appeal to the Military hawks, and while his relations with business aren't too bad, he's never really come across as the capitalist cheerleader that other candidates have been, not only that but he's even been a sponsor of environmentalist initiatives, and is a believer in global warming too.

He is certainly the smartest candidate for GOP. I also think he is vying for the VP position. We all know that the attention he is grabbing right now is mostly due to it's being GOP's newest attempt at thwarting Romney. Too bad that at the end of the day he is still a Mormon as far as GOP is concerned.

Anyway, it won't be as easy for Romney the next time around in South Carolina. Everyone will be pressing hard to uncover the skeleton in his closet. The think tank behind his campaign have their work cut out for them. The attacking ads in New Hampshire should pale in comparison as to what to come next. When a Billionaire writes a 5-mil check to a candidate who has lost all of his momentum, it just shows how desperately people with interest don't want to see Romney to be the leading candidate. If he wins South Carolina, then that pretty much it for the Republicans, but I'm sure they won't make it easy for him.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by monir

He is certainly the smartest candidate for GOP. I also think he is vying for the VP position. We all know that the attention he is grabbing right now is mostly due to it's being GOP's newest attempt at thwarting Romney. Too bad that at the end of the day he is still a Mormon as far as GOP is concerned.

Anyway, it won't be as easy for Romney the next time around in South Carolina. Everyone will be pressing hard to uncover the skeleton in his closet. The think tank behind his campaign have their work cut out for them. The attacking ads in New Hampshire should pale in comparison as to what to come next. When a Billionaire writes a 5-mil check to a candidate who has lost all of his momentum, it just shows how desperately people with interest don't want to see Romney to be the leading candidate. If he wins South Carolina, then that pretty much it for the Republicans, but I'm sure they won't make it easy for him.

Yep. South Carolina is the Anyone But Romney's last stand. The attack ads are going to rain down as everyone else throw all their cash at their target.

[ChainLegacy]

"Asked in an interview on CNN's "John King, USA" last week about whether he might hold onto his delegates and attempt to force the GOP to alter its platform on national security or economic policy, Paul said, "That sounds like a lot of fun." He added that scenario "might be a way for me to promote the things I believe in, and that is a political action.""

Sounds nice to me. I'd love to see the neocrooks in that situation.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I like Huntsman's background and his policies aren't bad either, but his debate performances so far have been a bit underwhelming. He's been playing to much out of the republican playbook.

I think he's a bit too ... intellectual for republicans to get behind. I mean, what would the average republican voter think of the fact he speaks Chinese? Of the fact that he's been outside the country for long periods for reasons that don't include military service? He doesn't really appeal to any of the republican core demographics. He doesn't appeal to the religious right (supported Civil Unions when governor, is pro evolution), he's a bit too diplomatic to appeal to the Military hawks, and while his relations with business aren't too bad, he's never really come across as the capitalist cheerleader that other candidates have been, not only that but he's even been a sponsor of environmentalist initiatives, and is a believer in global warming too.

I could see him making it as candidate for Vice president, or making an excellent secretary of state. Though if it was a Romney win, and he picked Huntsman as VP, it would be somewhat odd having two mormons running together. That might put off the evangelicals. However I could see a Paul/Huntsman pairing being quite interesting. Huntsman would take a little edge off Paul, make him more palateable to the mainstream. Huntsman would also make a good VP as he's not really the type to upstage the presidential candidate.

Funny you mention those traits as things that might turn away voters, cuz when I read them, they sound like nice qualifications for the job. The amount of stock we put into irrelevant or stupid traits in modern presidential elections...

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Funny you mention those traits as things that might turn away voters, cuz when I read them, they sound like nice qualifications for the job. The amount of stock we put into irrelevant or stupid traits in modern presidential elections...

Oh, I like those elements of him too, and it certainly makes him fairly electable, but the real question is what do republicans think about those things, and I don't think he gels with the republican's current core platforms and voter base.

Here's an interesting video, a discussion between Huntsman and Gingrich on various foreign policy matters. They're both 2 of the better spoken candidates, and the format here makes a pleasant change from the conventional republican debates.

While Gingrich is fairly well spoken here, I think he's betrays his fairly realpolitik worldview. Huntsman is a bit more nuanced. Huntsman also does a lot better here then in the mainstream republican debates.

[ChainLegacy]

Yeah, I know. I was pretty much saying, albeit indirectly, the republican's current voter base is unfathomably stupid if they think those are bad qualities for a president to possess.

[Zetsubo]

the reps dont have a chance do they ?

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Yeah, I know. I was pretty much saying, albeit indirectly, the republican's current voter base is unfathomably stupid if they think those are bad qualities for a president to possess.

yes.... and the smarter ones have been dropping their registration in the party since 1996 in disgust, throwing in the towel on a party that *needs* to be utterly marginalized so we can start some sort of Bull Moose / Eisenhower party.

Noting the demographic trends and the corporate money flow changes --- I can actually see the GOP ending up in the corner with the other looney minor parties, the Dems being the "new center-right" corporatist faction and a "Main Street progressive" party springing up to fill in the new gap on the other end.

[monir]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Yeah, I know. I was pretty much saying, albeit indirectly, the republican's current voter base is unfathomably stupid if they think those are bad qualities for a president to possess.

I was going to point out that, "stupid is what stupid does" but I guess I can't be too critical of you since GW Bush was elected twice.

[Targus]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

How long can the military continue its normal operation if the NDAA is not signed?

Besides, didn't the bill pass 98-1 in the Senate? I recall the veto can be overruled by a 2/3 majority. So if Obama vetoed it, he'd be blamed for sabotaging the defence budget and still failed to stop it becoming law. There just wasn't a winning situation for him.

My point is that Obama has a history of going back on his word. He says one thing but does what he said he wouldn't do, and here he said he would never throw someone in jail without a trial. Not like anyone who follows him will be any different.