GOP Nominee for 2012, the list gets shorter

jank

Well seeing as Mick Huckabbe can wave his chances goodbye

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/12/huckabee-pac-coordinator-resig.html?wprss=44
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30014.html
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/30/mike-huckabee-granted-clemency-to-suspect-in-cop-killing-ambush/

The Diva herself has more enemies than friends in the GOP never mind the wider public at large

http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com/2009/03/sarah-palins-republican-enemies.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/how-sarah-palin-made-hers_b_358434.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/14/palin-lashes-out-at-the-m_n_358010.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/opinion/06ross.html

So does this open the door for the now firm favorite Mitt Romney to take the nomination. Questions remain though is he likable enough and is he the far right neo-Reagan for the GOP to unite behind. He is also a Mormon which may not help.

Thoughts?

Black Swan

jank wrote: »

So does this open the door for the now firm favorite Mitt Romney to take the nomination. Questions remain though is he likable enough and is he the far right neo-Reagan for the GOP to unite behind.

Thoughts?

"On April 12, 2006, [Governor] Romney signed the Massachusetts health reform law which requires nearly all Massachusetts residents to buy health insurance coverage or face the loss of their personal income tax exemption." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

This Massachusetts piece of legislation signed into law when Romney was governor in some ways sounds a lot like the criticisms of the Obama administration's health reform initiatives, claiming that citizens will be forced to pay for health insurance or suffer consequences?

RedPlanet

But does it ever really work like that?
Seems more like once you run for President and loose, you're damaged goods thereafter.
I'll wager it's someone new that we haven't heard too much about that gets the nod.

Overheal

RedPlanet wrote: »

But does it ever really work like that?
Seems more like once you run for President and loose, you're damaged goods thereafter.

Not really no. McCain would be in the big chair now if not for a few circumstantial political events (and one Wasilla woman), and he ran against the Bush Baby in 2000.

RedPlanet

tbh he's a perfect example.
He's run for president a few times, never won once.

Overheal

Came real close though. Real ****ing close. So no, I dont buy into your supposition.

jank

He would have won in 2000 if it weren't for some back handed tactics from rove his ilk with that infamous poll. I would have taken McCain over Bush any day. I actually quite like him but last year he was just too old, a symptom of the country on its knees. The country was crying out for something new and Obama gave them that in spades. His chance was 2000 not 2008

In some ways redplanet has a point. Mitt Romney spend $hitloads of money in the last election, more than anyone else combined afaik and he still flunked in the polls. He just didnt catch on. Maybe he will learn from his mistakes this time around but who could be the dark horse, there seems to be a dearth of talent in the GOP nevermind that the vocal right wing of the party seems to be dictating policy now. It is all well and good about getting excitied about Beck or Palin but these guys will never win a national election, they are just too extreme. Much like Howard Dean, great with the base but with the moderates they made them uneasy. It will be Obama's to lose imo but anyone I think of from the GOP they just dont cut it. Having Mitt Romney as a favourite for the nomination says it all about about the crux the GOP are in.

Any new blood coming in PJ? How about yourself.

Pocono Joe

jank wrote: »

Any new blood coming in PJ? How about yourself.

I don’t think another like McCain will be picked for 2012. He was about as close to a moderate/dem as the GOP could muster, and it didn't matter. We need a true conservative next time IMO. So other than Mitt Romney, watch out for Tim Pawlenty, John Thune, Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal, and maybe even Newt Gingrich. Right now there is no real leader in the GOP and I don’t think we will see one until after the results of the 2010 election. As for me… I'll never run for public office... not worth the headaches. Honestly, I’ll be happy to just be around in 2012.

Overheal

I think it mattered that he was as moderate as he was. His problem was his choice of Running Mate, which I am entirely convinced was a poorly calculated last moment GOP gamble to win over bruised Hillary Supporters. Poorly calculated.

It would be nice if he ran again and chose someone like Romney for a running mate but tbh I cant imagine he will have the energy for it. He's not the youngest of dogs and the sunniest of days and the 2 year Clusterf@#k that was the 07/08 Election would be enough to kill any Normal human being. Much less a 70++ State Senator.

RedPlanet

Overheal wrote: »

Came real close though. Real ****ing close. So no, I dont buy into your supposition.

Close doesn't count in a Presidential election, ask Al Gore.
The reasons why they lost are entirely subjective.

kev9100

Sarah Palin will be the Republican nominee, if she chooses to run of course. However, she does not have a hope in hell of winning the presidency.

Pocono Joe

My hopes are Dick Cheney runs in 2012. He would be right for America after we experience four years of the current administrations current path to economic destruction and todays version of Welcome Back Carter.

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

My hopes are Dick Cheney runs in 2012.

He better walk, rather than "run," given his physical condition and prior hospitalisations while VP?

RedPlanet wrote: »

But does it ever really work like that?
Seems more like once you run for President and loose, you're damaged goods thereafter.

Two words: Richard Nixon. He ran when VP for president against JFK and lost. After JFK was assassinated and LBJ took his turn, Nixon took the Republican primary and national election for a term and a half, being convinced to resign in his 2nd term due to Watergate.

kev9100 wrote: »

Sarah Palin will be the Republican nominee, if she chooses to run of course.

Blue dusts off her crystal globe and LOOKS .... Palin will run as a candidate in the 2012 primaries, but will not be selected by the Republicans to run against Obama in the general election.

If Palin was smart (and that's a BIG IF), she would run for US Congress in 2012, either the House or Senate, if she can get the Alaska backing. Then if she won her seat, wait to run for president in 2016 when Obama is a lame duck and the White House is up for grabs.

Overheal wrote: »

Not really no. McCain would be in the big chair now if not for a few circumstantial political events (and one Wasilla woman), and he ran against the Bush Baby in 2000.

Agree that Palin was a poor choice, and McCain's timing was indeed bad, given the "few circumstantial political events;" i.e., the greatest recession since the Great Depression, two seemingly endless wars, and a historic federal deficit. The old Pol Cat saying normally predicts an election "It's the economy stupid!" and the Republicans had been in power for the 8 years before the Great Recession of 2008-2009.

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

My hopes are Dick Cheney runs in 2012. He would be right for America after we experience four years of the current administrations current path to economic destruction and todays version of Welcome Back Carter.

Well I doubt he'll run. And if he did, he wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell.

Pocono Joe

Overheal wrote: »

Well I doubt he'll run. And if he did, he wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell.

It's snowing in Houston, TX right now... does that count towards anything?

smellslikeshoes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

My hopes are Dick Cheney runs in 2012. after we experience four years of the current administrations current path to economic destruction and todays version of Welcome Back Carter.

Lets not forget who was second in command leading up to this recession :rolleyes:
I don't remotely think its possible that Cheney would run, he would be 71 in 2012 and with a long history of health problems (4 heart attacks among other things) as well as being vice president of what in the end was a very very unpopular administration.

kev9100

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

If Palin was smart (and that's a BIG IF)

IMHO theres no if. She`s not.

Overheal

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Lets not forget who was second in command leading up to this recession :rolleyes:
I don't remotely think its possible that Cheney would run, he would be 71 in 2012 and with a long history of health problems (4 heart attacks among other things) as well as being vice president of what in the end was a very very unpopular administration.

I think his biggest problem is that nobody can point to the guy and say what Good he has done for the country if Any. But every Joe and Mary can point at the man and relate him to an evil villain, with his greasy rubbing hands, the perpetual operations on his cold black heart, censoring his home in Google, Enron, etc.

Pocono Joe

Yet Dick Cheney’s popularity continues to rise with the American people, while Obama’s falls. I guess sometimes good guys do wear black.

Overheal

No Dick Cheney is becoming popular because his asscheeks are beginning to relax and we're finally figuring out wth he was up to for 8 years. It has nothing to do with liking the guy.

smellslikeshoes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Yet Dick Cheney’s popularity continues to rise with the American people, while Obama’s falls. I guess sometimes good guys do wear black.

Show me proof that his popularity continues to rise?
Apart from a few good hunting jokes there has been very little of him mentioned.

The fact is though after the polls published near the end of the Bush administration you could really only go up, plenty of them here if you are interested.
30% approval 60% disapproval in January of this year.

As far as Obama's approval rating going down goes, his honeymoon period is over but it is in no way near the depths Dick Cheney reached during the Bush administration and is still quite favorable.

Pocono Joe

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Show me proof that his popularity continues to rise?
Apart from a few good hunting jokes there has been very little of him mentioned.

Geeeee…. You say that like providing the information you seek would actually make a difference in your opinion of Cheney.
Oh well it doesn’t really matter I guess, here is my exercise in futility for you:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/05/dick-cheney-george-w-bush-poll.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/cheney.poll/

Hey, President Obama is in town today and is visiting one of my Alma Maters. As he walks in my footsteps, I would suggest he actually attend a class on free-market economics.

Air Force One buzzed my house before landing causing all our chotchkies to shake, rattle and roll… Maybe he reads my posts here.

smellslikeshoes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Geeeee…. You say that like providing the information you seek would actually make a difference in your opinion of Cheney.
Oh well it doesn’t really matter I guess, here is my exercise in futility for you:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/05/dick-cheney-george-w-bush-poll.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/cheney.poll/

They are two good links you have provided and adequately prove your point that he has raised in popularity since leaving office but I still counter that after the end of the Bush administration the only way you could go is up. And 37% favorable to 55% unfavorable is no where near a rating that you could even think about running for office.

Don't get me wrong, I did hate the Bush administration but I'm not someone who would dislike someone just because they were Republican. I would consider myself someone who is kind of in the middle and dislike the extremes of both sides. I think Cheney is a likeable politician but even in 2012 with the Bush administration 4 years in the past it is still going to leave a very bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. This aswell as his age/health problems/hunting follys will rule him out in my opinion.

Pocono Joe

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

They are two good links you have provided and adequately prove your point that he has raised in popularity since leaving office but I still counter that after the end of the Bush administration the only way you could go is up. And 37% favorable to 55% unfavorable is no where near a rating that you could even think about running for office.

Don't get me wrong, I did hate the Bush administration but I'm not someone who would dislike someone just because they were Republican. I would consider myself someone who is kind of in the middle and dislike the extremes of both sides. I think Cheney is a likeable politician but even in 2012 with the Bush administration 4 years in the past it is still going to leave a very bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. This aswell as his age/health problems/hunting follys will rule him out in my opinion.

Fair enough, apologies on my part for lumping you into those whom request sources from me... which if the source were God himself wouldn’t sway their opinion if the individual was associated with the Bush administration or the person’s last name was Palin.

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Geeeee…. You say that like providing the information you seek would actually make a difference in your opinion of Cheney.
Oh well it doesn’t really matter I guess, here is my exercise in futility for you:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/05/dick-cheney-george-w-bush-poll.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/cheney.poll/

Hey, President Obama is in town today and is visiting one of my Alma Maters. As he walks in my footsteps, I would suggest he actually attend a class on free-market economics.

Air Force One buzzed my house before landing causing all our chotchkies to shake, rattle and roll… Maybe he reads my posts here.

"Is Cheney's uptick due to his visibility as one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration? Almost certainly not," says Keating Holland, CNN polling director.
"Former President George W. Bush's favorable rating rose 6 points in that same time period, and Bush has not given a single public speech since he left office."

jank

Cheney for 2012? God I hope not, he did enough damage during the last 8 years. His continuous sniping attacks from the sidelines smacks of bitterness and inferiority complex.

Overheal

Sniping and shooting old men in the back.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

"Is Cheney's uptick due to his visibility as one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration? Almost certainly not," says Keating Holland, CNN polling director.
"Former President George W. Bush's favorable rating rose 6 points in that same time period, and Bush has not given a single public speech since he left office."

Good point! Polling is a form of survey research, and the methodological literature suggests that at any given moment in time (cross-sectional survey like this one, rather than longitudinal over-time), there will be random variation that may account for some of the differences? Plus, GW Bush's increase with little exposure acted as a quasi-control group, suggesting that the poll increase may be due to something not explained by Cheney's visibility or opposition to Obama/Democrats, as opposed to the relative lack of visibility of GW Bush? It will be interesting to see if future polls over time (longitudinal) will continue to register an increase of favourability for Bush-Cheney, stay the same, or decrease?

**Geeeeeeez, I have to cut back on the coffee!**:eek:

Overheal

In fairness if you polled the question, you probably could have seen favor for FDR jump about 20 points last november - and he's been dead for over 50 years!

Flamed Diving

Romney is part of a formerly racist organisation, for one.

Soldie

Gary Johnson 2012 :pac:

Pocono Joe

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Romney is part of a formerly racist organisation, for one.

I',m confused... I thought he was a Republican, not a Democrat.

Flamed Diving

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I',m confused... I thought he was a Republican, not a Democrat.

The Church of Mormon.

Pocono Joe

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The Church of Mormon.

Ahhh... the other “formerly racist organization.” Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Flamed Diving

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Ahhh... the other “formerly racist organization.” Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Which Romney was a part of while he was still an adult, before they changed. I'm robbing this from Chris Hitchens, but it is a good point.

Overheal

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The Church of Mormon.

Flamed Diving

Following the death of Joseph Smith, Jr. and the succession crisis, leaders of the major Latter Day Saint movement denomination, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, continued to welcome all people regardless of color to be members; however, they began to exclude most people of black African descent (regardless of actual skin color) from Priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies. These practices continued until September 30, 1978, when church President Spencer W. Kimball, acting in his office as Living Prophet declared that in early June 1978 he had received a revelation from God to extend the priesthood and temple ordinances to all worthy male members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

To Whom It May Concern:
On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:
In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:
June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:
As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.
Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. (up until this date, black members were not allowed to become priests) Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.
We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.
Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency
Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.
Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.
The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

My addition in brackets.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/2

Oh dear, oh dear...

Overheal

Actually I was referring to you calling it the Church of Mormon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Flamed Diving

Overheal wrote: »

Actually I was referring to you calling it the Church of Mormon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

That the best you got? And that picture. How childish...

Scofflaw

This all looks a bit AH now, what with the squabbling, the facepalm picture and all...

moderately,
Scofflaw

Overheal

Flamed Diving wrote: »

That the best you got? And that picture. How childish...

Im not fighting with you or even disagreeing with you except to say calling it the Church of Mormon really deflates your credibility.

Flamed Diving

Overheal wrote: »

Im not fighting with you or even disagreeing with you except to say calling it the Church of Mormon really deflates your credibility.

Well, if calling it the Church of Mormon deflates my credibility, what on earth does putting up that picture do?







P.S. I'm not denying the official title is LDS, but the CoM title appears to be out there in the popular conciousness, it seems you have 3.8m facepalms to distribute, lest people not realise how inaccurate their lives are.

norbert64

not meaning to get caught up in all the fun, but isn't Romney generally rather private about his Mormonism/faith so the point is m00t, no?

Sure, he'll throw a bone to the fundies on hot button issues, but when it comes to actual Governance, he seems to be a strict businessman.
Heck, a McCain/Romney ticket last year, may well have given Obama a better run for his money.

Flamed Diving

norbert64 wrote: »

not meaning to get caught up in all the fun, but isn't Romney generally rather private about his Mormonism/faith so the point is m00t, no?

Sure, he'll throw a bone to the fundies on hot button issues, but when it comes to actual Governance, he seems to be a strict businessman.
Heck, a McCain/Romney ticket last year, may well have given Obama a better run for his money.

Yeah, but given that he was an adult member of a racist organisation I would imagine that these type of "private feelings" would be tricky to keep as such.

Pocono Joe

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yeah, but given that he was an adult member of a racist organisation I would imagine that these type of "private feelings" would be tricky to keep as such.

Similar insipid type of things were said about John F Kennedy and his Catholicism when he ran for POTUS. As we found out, it didn’t matter back then either.

Flamed Diving

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Similar insipid type of things were said about John F Kennedy and his Catholicism when he ran for POTUS. As we found out, it didn’t matter back then either.

And if it wouldn't matter now, then he has nothing to fear. But as it stands, he was a member of a racist organisation, as an adult. He should account for this.

Pocono Joe

Just curious FD... does it bother you that Robert Byrd is third in the line of succession to the Presidency after Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi?

Flamed Diving

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Just curious FD... does it bother you that Robert Byrd is third in the line of succession to the Presidency after Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi?

I can't sleep at night, Joe. However,

P(A) = P1*P2*P3

P(A) = Event that all three will die within one year.
P1 = Prob of 67-year old (Biden) dying within one year.
P2 = Prob of 69 ...
P3 = Prob of 48 ...

= 0.020735*0.024826*0.004809 = 0.00000247551503199 in 1. According to:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html#fn1

it would appear that the odds of this guy taking the reins are pretty low. Plus he appears to have (publically) regretted his actions back then. If Romney came out and admitted the same, what more could you ask?

Nodin

I have to say I agree with Joe, (dirty as that makes me feel). Can't be bashing the man because of the nutty or past elements of his church. He can only be hung by his own rope.

Flamed Diving

Nodin wrote: »

I have to say I agree with Joe, (dirty as that makes me feel). Can't be bashing the man because of the nutty or past elements of his church. He can only be hung by his own rope.

This wasn't down to the "nutty elements" of his church, so perhaps you can cease attempting to cheapen the seriousness of this issue with apologist rhetoric. The racist policies of the LDS were effectively written into their very constitution of their church and not the "fringe elements" of an otherwise upstanding organisation. As you can see below, the tides were beginning to change around Romney's time, but they didn't come to pass until 1977. Was Romney a vocal opponent of these racist policies at the time? Is there any record of this? What has he to say of this era now? Does he condemn his former leaders publically?

In 1954, Church President David O. McKay taught: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacks_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Racial_policy_1951-1977

JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH
Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66.
There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.

pg. 61.

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.

Juvenile Instructor, vol. 26, p. 635

It is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness...It has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom His blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extent as to excite the comments of all who have known them.

Nodin

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This wasn't down to the "nutty elements" of his church, so perhaps you can cease attempting to cheapen the seriousness of this issue with apologist rhetoric.

I hate it when people can't even read the post when its on the same page, I really do.

because of the nutty or past elements of his church

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The racist (.....)see below,

....didn't think I needed a lecture on the LDS either.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

the tides were beginning to change around Romney's time, but they didn't come to pass until 1977. Was Romney a vocal opponent of these racist policies at the time? Is there any record of this? What has he to say of this era now? Does he condemn his former leaders publically?

Wouldn't all that come under

He can only be hung by his own rope.