2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

Thought maybe Gingrich could survive having a huge portion of his staff quit?

Well now his fundraising director and consultant just quit.

Will be fun to watch him try to churn that milk into butter, though.

Seth wrote:

Thought maybe Gingrich could survive having a huge portion of his staff quit?

Well now his fundraising director and consultant just quit.

Will be fun to watch him try to churn that milk into butter, though.

Best quote so far on this:

Where will he find a new wife, now?
Tanglebones wrote:
Seth wrote:

Thought maybe Gingrich could survive having a huge portion of his staff quit?

Well now his fundraising director and consultant just quit.

Will be fun to watch him try to churn that milk into butter, though.

Best quote so far on this:

Where will he find a new wife, now?

He can knuckle under and pimp himself out as a VP for someone else's ticket. That will keep him on a campaign trail long enough to find his next easily impressionable woman.

I wonder if the general GOP malaise now sees him as toxic as they see Palin and Trump.

Seth wrote:

I wonder if the general GOP malaise now sees him as toxic as they see Palin and Trump.

Gingrich? I'm not the guy's biggest fan, but I really hope that's not the case. If people want to lump his brand of stupid in with Trump's brand of crazy, I begin to wonder just what the hell they'll find electable.

I was using toxic there as a stand in for "unelectable," not trying to compare Trump with Gingrich.

Of the existing field, I think Romney and Hunstman are contenders to actually challenge Obama in an election; everything else is just a circus act.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Seth wrote:

I wonder if the general GOP malaise now sees him as toxic as they see Palin and Trump.

Gingrich? I'm not the guy's biggest fan, but I really hope that's not the case. If people want to lump his brand of stupid in with Trump's brand of crazy, I begin to wonder just what the hell they'll find electable.

IMAGE(http://www.dickipedia.org/images/Bachmann.jpg)

Seth wrote:

I was using toxic there as a stand in for "unelectable," not trying to compare Trump with Gingrich.

Of the existing field, I think Romney and Hunstman are contenders to actually challenge Obama in an election; everything else is just a circus act.

Oh. Well, yeah I guess Romney's the frontrunner in most people's eyes, unless he does something ridiculous. I think he's got a bit of a "eh, sure, might as well" following and not a large groundswell of real support. Which actually sort've leads me to believe the stance (which I think you pointed out) of the Republicans not really caring to unseat Obama since he's been such a boon to them.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Which actually sort've leads me to believe the stance (which I think you pointed out) of the Republicans not really caring to unseat Obama since he's been such a boon to them.

Of course they still have to look like they want to unseat him since they've spent the last few years pretending he's the love-child of Marx, Hitler, Mao and some random Kenyan who wants to overthrow the US government and turn the country into a Muslim sanctuary for terrorists. Even though in all actuality they've been getting almost everything they've asked for even before they had a majority.

And in line with that: Why the GOP should nominate Barack Obama in 2012. It's a pointed article in Salon as why Obama should really be considered a moderate republican president.

Rallick wrote:

And in line with that: Why the GOP should nominate Barack Obama in 2012. It's a pointed article in Salon as why Obama should really be considered a moderate republican president.

That is a really neat article.

Well, again, by most standards, at least international ones certainly, he's a moderate, and if you want to judge him by his non-movement on Immigration reform (lots of talk, no concrete movement), opposition to marriage equality, and his administration's current policies of international bombings, continuation of the Bush administration's secrecy and attacks on whistleblowers.... and if you ALSO want to factor in the response to the banking crash, the bailout, and the minor slap on the wrists given to said banks, there are a lot of places where he certainly would be called a conservative.

But, current GOP strategy seems to be to continue pushing "Centrism" further and further right, so Obama is next to, if not a socialist. (To which I have always said, if he is a socialist, he is the worst socialist i've ever seen. He's absolutely terrible at it.)

MONTEGO BAY, Jamaica (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is questioning the priorities of lawmakers criticizing the U.S. intervention in Libya. She's asking bluntly, "Whose side are you on?"

The administration has now decided to channel Dick Cheney circa Spring 2003. Honestly, it's like they are daring me to vote for a third party. Or Romney.

"I'm on the side that believes in following the law, Mrs. Clinton. How about you?"

You know, you'd be to be pretty goddamn stupid to vote for Obama at this point. In no way that actually matters is he substantially different than GW Bush.

Malor wrote:

"I'm on the side that believes in following the law, Mrs. Clinton. How about you?"

You know, you'd be to be pretty goddamn stupid to vote for Obama at this point. In no way that actually matters is he substantially different than GW Bush.

Yeah. During the 2008 campaign people painted McCain as if he would be a continuation of Bush's policies. The irony is painful.

Malor wrote:

You know, you'd be to be pretty goddamn stupid to vote for Obama at this point.

Unless your other choices are worse.

DSGamer wrote:

Yeah. During the 2008 campaign people painted McCain as if he would be a continuation of Bush's policies. The irony is painful.

I'd still vote for Obama over McCain/Palin. No regrets there.

Funkenpants wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Yeah. During the 2008 campaign people painted McCain as if he would be a continuation of Bush's policies. The irony is painful.

I'd still vote for Obama over McCain/Palin. No regrets there.

I'm not saying McCain was the better choice. Just that most of the knocks against McCain (Palin aside) were that he would continue the policies of Bush.

DSGamer wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Yeah. During the 2008 campaign people painted McCain as if he would be a continuation of Bush's policies. The irony is painful.

I'd still vote for Obama over McCain/Palin. No regrets there.

I'm not saying McCain was the better choice. Just that most of the knocks against McCain (Palin aside) were that he would continue the policies of Bush.

Yeah, an objective examination of Obama as a President would be pretty sad and ugly, but I have yet to see much hope on the horizon. Romney is probably the best of the competition I have seen so far, and he is both unlikely to appeal to a lot of the Republican base and unlikely to truly be much better. I am not thrilled with most of the non-party "front-runners", too, so I will likely end up being pretty goddamn stupid in 17 months.

McCain is a little too psycho to be president. He's impulsive and combative and tends to take pleasure in doing the opposite of whatever people expect him to do. It would have been a very odd term. Instead what we got was Clinton II, which some people always expected Obama to be. Libya, for example, is tied up with Clinton's constant post-presidential hand wringing about not sending troops into Rwanda. It's like a do-over for Obama, psychologically speaking.

Atras wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Yeah. During the 2008 campaign people painted McCain as if he would be a continuation of Bush's policies. The irony is painful.

I'd still vote for Obama over McCain/Palin. No regrets there.

I'm not saying McCain was the better choice. Just that most of the knocks against McCain (Palin aside) were that he would continue the policies of Bush.

Yeah, an objective examination of Obama as a President would be pretty sad and ugly, but I have yet to see much hope on the horizon. Romney is probably the best of the competition I have seen so far, and he is both unlikely to appeal to a lot of the Republican base and unlikely to truly be much better. I am not thrilled with most of the non-party "front-runners", too, so I will likely end up being pretty goddamn stupid in 17 months.

Tracking of Obama's promises made.

I'm very disappointed in Obama, considering that I voted for him in the hopes he'd put an end to the national panic surrounding airports and homeland security in general. Instead things have gotten worse. What's the progress on ending the war on drugs, Gitmo, staying out of conflicts we have no place in? The Democratic party talks a good game, but once any administration gets into office, they immediately enter a cover your ass mode.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I'm very disappointed in Obama, considering that I voted for him in the hopes he'd put an end to the national panic surrounding airports and homeland security in general. Instead things have gotten worse. What's the progress on ending the war on drugs, Gitmo, staying out of conflicts we have no place in? The Democratic party talks a good game, but once any administration gets into office, they immediately enter a cover your ass mode.

Bingo!

I'm voting for Obama again in the hopes we might get what we wanted in a second term. But it is clear that he is playing it ultra safe and conservative in this term in an effort to get re-elected. He's just much more pure politician than I expected. But Clinton had a much better 2nd term, too.

But then, I guess I am just pretty goddamn stupid.

Jayhawker wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

I'm very disappointed in Obama, considering that I voted for him in the hopes he'd put an end to the national panic surrounding airports and homeland security in general. Instead things have gotten worse. What's the progress on ending the war on drugs, Gitmo, staying out of conflicts we have no place in? The Democratic party talks a good game, but once any administration gets into office, they immediately enter a cover your ass mode.

Bingo!

I'm voting for Obama again in the hopes we might get what we wanted in a second term. But it is clear that he is playing it ultra safe and conservative in this term in an effort to get re-elected. He's just much more pure politician than I expected. But Clinton had a much better 2nd term, too.

But then, I guess I am just pretty goddamn stupid.

I'm voting for Obama again largely because I refuse to vote Republican until sanity returns to the GOP. Which means I'm likely voting Democrat for another couple decades until the aging evangelicals die off.

My knock against McCain is he was a withered, senile turncoat who marched through everything I admired about him in 2000, and burned it to the ground with a zeal matched only by Sherman's March, transforming himself into a twisted, hateful monstrosity I no longer recognized. And if Romney is indeed the front runner, they better get one of the higher invertebrates to run with him. I'm not expecting a fully developed spine, but at the very least and exoskeleton would be nice. A mollusk isn't enough.

My knock against McCain is that I never liked him and he picked Palin. Also, the whole Republican Party went crazy after 2000.

McCain has always been a twisted, hateful monstrosity. He just liked playing a moderate, mavericky guy on TV.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The Democratic party talks a good game, but once any administration gets into office, they immediately enter a cover your ass mode.

Right. But as much as I don't like Obama, the republicans and their "We're worried about the deficit, but we won't consider ANY tax increase- not one, not even removing tax subsidies for oil companies" act pisses me off even more.

Funkenpants wrote:

But as much as I don't like Obama, the republicans and their "We're worried about the deficit, but we won't consider ANY tax increase- not one, not even removing tax subsidies for oil companies" act pisses me off even more.

Same here. If they actually put up a moderate Republican (not going to happen) I'd consider voting for them this go around except for the above. This rainbows and unicorns world view of eliminating the national debt while continuing to cut taxes and increase military spending got old about 20 years ago. If you're serious about getting the budget under control you're going to have to eliminate subsidies, cut spending and raise taxes. That's just reality.

It's like having some guy standing in his kitchen screaming for 30 years that he just wants a sandwich, why oh why can't someone fix him a sandwich!? When within arms reach he has a loaf of bread, a pack of bologna and a jar of mayonaise. When someone asks him why he doesn't just put them all together and make the sandwich he glares at them and says that he'll never touch bread and that he knows that there must be some way to make that damnable sandwich without bread.

Kehama wrote:

It's like having some guy standing in his kitchen screaming for 30 years that he just wants a sandwich, why oh why can't someone fix him a sandwich!? When within arms reach he has a loaf of bread, a pack of bologna and a jar of mayonaise. When someone asks him why he doesn't just put them all together and make the sandwich he glares at them and says that he'll never touch bread and that he knows that there must be some way to make that damnable sandwich without bread.

Speaking as someone who puts a fish-stick between two slices of bacon and calls it surf'n'turf, there is a way to make a sandwich without bread.

Jonman wrote:
Kehama wrote:

It's like having some guy standing in his kitchen screaming for 30 years that he just wants a sandwich, why oh why can't someone fix him a sandwich!? When within arms reach he has a loaf of bread, a pack of bologna and a jar of mayonaise. When someone asks him why he doesn't just put them all together and make the sandwich he glares at them and says that he'll never touch bread and that he knows that there must be some way to make that damnable sandwich without bread.

Speaking as someone who puts a fish-stick between two slices of bacon and calls it surf'n'turf, there is a way to make a sandwich without bread.

No...that's surf'n'turf. The key difference is the lack of bread.