Official GOP 2012 Nomination Thread

jank

So, with the first debate last night I suppose we can make an official thread.
No big names well apart from Ron Paul and Tim Pawlenty. A snap poll after by Fred Lundtz said that Cain won but he wont be anywhere near the top for the nomination pick.

I must say though very very poor list of candidates even with the big names included. When the favourite is Romney things must be bad for the GOP. 1996 again?

Amerika

It’s still to early for the big names to get into the race. Right now Barack Obama only has himself to run against.

But in the early GOP debate, the clear winner in the debate was Rick Santorum. Just watch, Rick’s style of going after Barack Obama will be followed by all other Republicans going forward:

"If you look at what President Obama has done right in foreign policy, it has always been a continuation of the Bush policies…" "He's done right by keeping Guantanamo open. He's done right by finishing the job in Iraq. He's done right by trying to win in Afghanistan. Those were existing policies that were in place. The decision he made with Osama bin Laden -- that was a tactical decision. It wasn't a strategic decision. The strategic decision was made by President Bush, to go after him."

"What President Obama has done on his watch, the issues that have come up while he has been president, he's gotten it wrong strategically every single time..." "Whether it's in Central America, Colombia and Honduras, whether it's in the Middle East, with Egypt and Syria, and most importantly with Iran -- we had an opportunity 18 months ago to topple a regime that is a sworn enemy, is at war with this country, is funding terrorist attacks against our troops and in the Middle East, and the president of the United States sided with the mullahs instead of the demonstrators."

This resonated well with Republicans.

Tim Pawlenty played "Minnesota Nice" and completely underwhelmed us, much to my chagrin. Pawlenty needs to become serious about being a candidate going forward if he wants any chance to win.

Ron Paul wants to stop foreign aid… What? And the whole heroin thing was just strange.

Herman Cain won some viewers over on fiscal matters but admits he doesn't have a plan on Afghanistan and not much on any foreign policy matter it seems.

And Gary Johnson appeared to be there for comic relief.

Some of those who chose to forego the debate lost a chance to up their national prominence and standing. I don’t think most of those MIA will do that again after Cain’s popularity shot up because of the debate.

SharpshooterTom

The GOP haven't had any charasmatic candidates since Reagan. This could be there 4th defeat in 6 elections.

Only once have got the majority of the vote since 1988, only once have they got more of popularity of the vote than the democrats.

However they have controlled the house and senate mostly since then. The only thing you could say that if/when Obama's bounce goes he'll be back down to mid forties again, both Clinton and Reagan were mid-50s by there re-election and he has 18 months to do that and if he doesn't he's certainly not a shoe in.

Brussels Sprout

Do people believe Palin is going to run or will she accept the common consensus that she is unelectable?

Black Swan

There are no obvious front runners. The GOP is not focused on winning the presidency in 2012, rather to extend their lead in the US House and win control of the Senate.

steelcityblues

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only two who care for true conservative convictions.

The others will inevitably sell out to Israel, Wall Street, etc. if it gets them further up the greasy slope.

Cain, for example, served on the Kansas City fed and has yet to come straight on the question of a possible audit of this institution. Yet, he is supposedly the GOP's new 'star'.

gargleblaster

"If you look at what President Obama has done right in foreign policy, it has always been a continuation of the Bush policies…" "The decision he made with Osama bin Laden -- that was a tactical decision. It wasn't a strategic decision. The strategic decision was made by President Bush, to go after him."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

I wonder if he was called on that after the fact.

20Cent

Newt Gingrich has announced he will run.
Divisive figure has more baggage than Louis Viton according to BBC news.

Amerika

It really doesn’t matter who wins the GOP nomination. It’s now starting to look like it will be pretty hard for just about any Republican not to win the presidency in 2012.

It’s now year 3 of Obama regime. Unemployment is at 9%. We’re still 7 million jobs less than when he took office and spent $1 trillion, promising it would add between 250,000 and 500,000 PER MONTH. Economic growth remains dismal. Housing prices have fallen for 57 consecutive months. Gas is already over $4/gal in quite a few areas. And only 1 in 3 Americans approve of the way Obama is handling the economy.

His campaign fears voters will judge him on his performance, so they are now shifting the talking points to try and get the people to judge him on “values." Hmmmm.. But as I recall, the debate on values was declared illegitimate in 2008 by the Obama campaign - remember Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.

So even with $1 billion he plans on spending on his reelection, he can’t escape the realities the American people face in their every day lives.

His best hope might be a quick annexation of Mexico.

Jackalope

Gnobe wrote: »

The GOP haven't had any charasmatic candidates since Reagan. This could be there 4th defeat in 6 elections.

Only once have got the majority of the vote since 1988, only once have they got more of popularity of the vote than the democrats.

However they have controlled the house and senate mostly since then. The only thing you could say that if/when Obama's bounce goes he'll be back down to mid forties again, both Clinton and Reagan were mid-50s by there re-election and he has 18 months to do that and if he doesn't he's certainly not a shoe in.

Excuse me, but I don't believe that statement is really accurate.

The Republican Vote was split in both 1992 and 1996. While Clinton may have gotten more votes than either individual candidate, he did not have a majority of votes. I think it's inaccurate to say that, "only once have they got more of popularity of the vote than the democrats".

Jackalope

20Cent wrote: »

Newt Gingrich has announced he will run.
Divisive figure has more baggage than Louis Viton according to BBC news.

I think that's accurate.

However, that same divisive figure was once Speaker of the House and he has a $52M war chest two years out from the election.

This is also the same "divisive" figure who engineered the takeover of Congress by the GOP in 1996.

With a President who has popularity ratings hovering at or below 40% and a Congress with a 19% approval rating, it's not as if the Democrats have set the bar too high for Gingrich. There's a tremendous amount of frustration and resentment directed at Obama because of the economy, unemployment and the deficit.

A bankrupt homeowner without a job can overlook a great deal of philandering with women who are not the candidate's wife if it means keeping your house and getting a job.

Brussels Sprout

Amerika wrote: »

It’s now starting to look like it will be pretty hard for just about any Republican not to win the presidency in 2012.

That's convenient since they have some very very ordinary candidates

Jackalope

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

That's convenient since they have some very very ordinary candidates

I disagree, and I think it's very unfortunate that this seems to be the prevailing opion.

Mr. Paul has some very logical, although unconventional ideas. I think many of these need to be given some serious thought.

Mr. Cain is a very dynamic, exciting man with a vast store of business experience who has not been corrupted by Washington politics.

Mr. Sanborum represents the very conservative, "Tea Party" side of the GOP.

Mr. Gingrich brings a wealth of political experience and savvy, albeit with a great deal of personal baggage.

Mr. Romney represents the moderate side of the GOP and should appeal to the widest range of voters.

Mr. Huckabee also has a number of excellent ideas and strategies while appealing to the religious sect.

I think it's a very varied and exciting group of people if you look at each one on their merits and considering how low the bar is for them to hurdle, I think they'll provide Mr. Obama with strong competition.

Brussels Sprout

Jackalope wrote: »

I disagree, and I think it's very unfortunate that this seems to be the prevailing opion.

Mr. Paul has some very logical, although unconventional ideas. I think many of these need to be given some serious thought.

Mr. Cain is a very dynamic, exciting man with a vast store of business experience who has not been corrupted by Washington politics.

Mr. Sanborum represents the very conservative, "Tea Party" side of the GOP.

Mr. Gingrich brings a wealth of political experience and savvy, albeit with a great deal of personal baggage.

Mr. Romney represents the moderate side of the GOP and should appeal to the widest range of voters.

Mr. Huckabee also has a number of excellent ideas and strategies while appealing to the religious sect.

I think it's a very varied and exciting group of people if you look at each one on their merits and considering how low the bar is for them to hurdle, I think they'll provide Mr. Obama with strong competition.

Don't forget Palin and Trump!

Paul: won't get the nomination
Cain: Michael Steel may have got the chair of the national committee after Obama's election but I can't see the GOP nominating a black man for president just yet
Sanborum: Tea party candidates won't play well nationally
Gingrich: I think you summed up best why he's a no hoper yourself
Romney: Best of a bad bunch
Huckabee: Has he done anything in the past 4 years that'll help him leap from leap frog Romney?

So the 2 strongest candidates are losers from 4 years ago-not very exciting really.

You left out Tim Pawlenty. He seemed to be a good bet but is possibly too "nice" for the mud slinging that will be required in this election.

Jackalope

Didn't forget Palin or Trump. Don't expect them to run.

Didn't forget Pawlenty either. Just don't expect much from him.

But I think your estimates of most of these candidates are far to modest.

No, Paul won't get the nomination. He's too radical. Same goes for Sanborum.

Gingrich, Cain and Romney will be the front runners. Two very exciting, experienced politicians and a top-notch businessman against someone who has tripled the national debt, maintained unemployment for four years, increased the annual budget by a trillion dollars and whose major accomplishments are simply a continuation of Bush's policy.

I don't think it will be nearly as cut and dried as you feel.

Funglegunk

Jackalope wrote: »

Didn't forget Palin or Trump. Don't expect them to run.

Didn't forget Pawlenty either. Just don't expect much from him.

But I think your estimates of most of these candidates are far to modest.

No, Paul won't get the nomination. He's too radical. Same goes for Sanborum.

Gingrich, Cain and Romney will be the front runners. Two very exciting, experienced politicians and a top-notch businessman against someone who has tripled the national debt, maintained unemployment for four years, increased the annual budget by a trillion dollars and whose major accomplishments are simply a continuation of Bush's policy.

I don't think it will be nearly as cut and dried as you feel.

I bet you 20 euros Obama wins comfortably. If you're talking about 'political savvy', none of the candidates you mentioned are as politically savvy as Obama is.

Not to mention healthcare, killed Bin Laden (yes, it was Obama's decision to find and kill Bin Laden. The Bush administration had largely given up on this.), auto industry etc. etc.

Also, if Palin doesn't run what the hell else is she going to do?

Jackalope

I think you need to take into consideration that Gingrich engineered the takeover of the GOP in 1996 with his "Contract with America". He's a man whose risen from Representative, to Minority Whip to Minority Leader to Speaker of the House.

Based on what was written in "Game Change" by John Heilemann, most of Obama's political savvy came from Harry Reid and a group of Democrats opposed to Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Certainly, we've all seen the gaffes made by the Obama administration since they took over, including but not limited to his initial problems with picking his staff (who subsequently had a multitude of tax problems), giving the prestigious gift of DVD's to Tony Blair which didn't play in European DVD players and Mrs. Obama wearing beachwear on Air Force One. These are trivial of course, but they point to the political naivete and inexperience of the Obama political machine once the Reid assistance was taken away.

Then we have the vast number of promises and statements he will have to defend in the debates; the promise to televise the Healthcare Debate, the promise to eliminate lobbyists from the White House, the "Hope and Change" which has turned into a continuation of the same old political cronyism, smoke filled rooms and dealing seen for generations.

I think any reliance on the political skills of this group would be ...generous.

Mr. Obama will not have Mr. Bush to blame for the problems facing the American people in 2012, unless he attempts to continue to try and state that these difficulties are all the result of Bush policies. In addition to the fact that this has been tried with minimal results, Mr. Obama was elected to correct these issues. If he has proven after a full term to be unable do so, then why would he be given another chance?

As for Ms. Palin, she will continue to do what she's doing now, being a strong "Kingmaker" in the Tea Party and very influential within the GOP while making a great deal of money writing and speaking. She risks all that with an unsuccessful run for the White House. With less than 16% of the population looking at her favorably as a President, that would be foolish indeed.

kev9100

Mitt Romney won't get the nominaion because of two simple words: individual mandate. Once the real campaign starts, he's done.

As for who will get the nomination, I really have no idea but I'd guess Pawlenty if he keeps moving to the right. Either way, the GOP field is very poor.

Jackalope

Poor in what way?

I ask that because it always seems that those who disagree from an ideological standpoint believe that the party that opposes their ideology presents a very weak or poor candidate. But that candidate isn't appealing to them for their vote. The candidate knows that someone with an opposing ideology won't vote for them. They're appealing to those who share that ideology to vote for them.

A great example of that is John McCain. Democrats thought he was a great candidate, but Republicans turned him down in 2000 and gave him only lukewarm support in 2008. He didn't represent the views of most Republican voters even though Democrats viewed him much more positively than they did Mr. Bush.

So by "poor", do you mean as they appeal to Democrats or how they appeal to Republicans?

Brussels Sprout

If these candidate were running for the Republican party nomination alone then you could classify them as strong candidates by your definition. However, they are running for the president so therefore need to win over the all important undecided voters and it is by this yardstick that they can be considered to be ordinary candidates.

If things continue the way they are economically then Obama may well lose but it won't be because of the brilliance of his opponent, if taken from this bunch. It will be more of a protest vote by the floating voters.

The state of the economy over the next 12 months holds the key to this election. If things get worse Obama will lose. If they stay the same it'll be tight. If they improve Obama will win. The choice of Republican nominee has little to do with it in my opinion.

kev9100

Jackalope wrote: »

Poor in what way?


So by "poor", do you mean as they appeal to Democrats or how they appeal to Republicans?

First of all, I should probably say I am considerably to the left of Obama and most democrats. But by poor I mean poor chances of actually winning. So far, all of the prospective candidates are either too extreme (both Pauls, Palin, Trump, Santorum) to win the general election or too "moderate" by republican standards (Huntsman, Romney because of HCR and arguably Pawlenty) to win the nomination.

The rise of the far-right in the GOP may have helped them when it comes to congress (although this may change) but it has put them in a very tough position when it comes to the Presidency.

Jackalope

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

If these candidate were running for the Republican party nomination alone then you could classify them as strong candidates by your definition. However, they are running for the president so therefore need to win over the all important undecided voters and it is by this yardstick that they can be considered to be ordinary candidates.

If things continue the way they are economically then Obama may well lose but it won't be because of the brilliance of his opponent, if taken from this bunch. It will be more of a protest vote by the floating voters.

The state of the economy over the next 12 months holds the key to this election. If things get worse Obama will lose. If they stay the same it'll be tight. If they improve Obama will win. The choice of Republican nominee has little to do with it in my opinion.

Well, first off, they have to win the nomination from their party, so right now, they are running for the Republican party nomination alone. As Ms. Clinton can tell you, being able to win the General Election doesn't mean anything if you can't win the nomination of your party.

And yes, the Republican may indeed win because of a "protest vote". So what? That's exactly how Mr. Obama won. Surely you can't point to his wealth of experience prior to 2008 and tell me that he was the most qualified. He won because people were angry at George Bush.

I disagree with your view of the economy though. If the economy stays the same or goes down, Obama is done. If it gets better, the Republican could make a very good case that it only started to get better when Republicans took the House and stopped Mr. Obama's wild spending.

Unemployment and home sales will have to improve and they'll have to do so based on something that Mr. Obama can point to as his initiative, not to something he opposed (such as budget cuts).

Jackalope

kev9100 wrote: »

First of all, I should probably say I am considerably to the left of Obama and most democrats. But by poor I mean poor chances of actually winning. So far, all of the prospective candidates are either too extreme (both Pauls, Palin, Trump, Santorum) to win the general election or too "moderate" by republican standards (Huntsman, Romney because of HCR and arguably Pawlenty) to win the nomination.

The rise of the far-right in the GOP may have helped them when it comes to congress (although this may change) but it has put them in a very tough position when it comes to the Presidency.

Fair enough. I'm a conservative Libertarian, so (a) I'm not a Republican, didn't vote for Bush either time and didn't vote for McCain (b) I am conservative but (c) I place freedom and liberty ahead of conservative values. That should help you know where I'm coming from as well.

But I disagree with your assessment. In 2008, I don't think it mattered one whit who ran against Obama. The Republican was going to lose. There was such a pent-up hatred of Bush that any Republican would've lost the 2008 election. I think that's one reason Republicans nominated McCain. He didn't really represent most Republicans but they felt he "deserved" a shot, so they put him up knowing he'd get hammered.

In 2012, I think we have much the same situation, but Mr. Obama is not as universally disliked as Mr. Bush was. I think just about any Republican will do pretty much the same way against Mr. Obama. I think the election is Mr. Obama's to lose, not a Republican's to win. It depends on the economy, the housing market and unemployment. If those continue to stay in the dumper, I think just about any Republican will be able to beat him. If not, he wins.

cheesehead

Mitch Daniels (Governor of Indiana) appears to be gathering some momentum. Some prominent Republican Governors are offering support if he runs: Christie (NJ), Barbour (MS), Walker (WI), Kasich (OH) and reportedly Scott (FL) as well as former FL governor Jeb Bush.

Personally, Daniels appears to have solid credentials (both public and private-sector experience). Some wishful talk of a Daniels/Rubio ticket if he jumps in.

kev9100

Jackalope wrote: »

In 2012, I think we have much the same situation, but Mr. Obama is not as universally disliked as Mr. Bush was. I think just about any Republican will do pretty much the same way against Mr. Obama. I think the election is Mr. Obama's to lose, not a Republican's to win. It depends on the economy, the housing market and unemployment. If those continue to stay in the dumper, I think just about any Republican will be able to beat him. If not, he wins.

I agree with that up to a point as the economy is by the most important issue. Where I differ from you is that it doesn't really matter who the GOP nominate. If they go for someone like a Palin or a Paul they simply alienate/disgust too much of the electorate. If I was a Republican, I'd want someone like Huntsman as he does worry me if he won the nomination.

cheesehead

Some say the only Republican candidate that potentially worries the Obama re-election campaign is Huntsman.

Jackalope

kev9100 wrote: »

I agree with that up to a point as the economy is by the most important issue. Where I differ from you is that it doesn't really matter who the GOP nominate. If they go for someone like a Palin or a Paul they simply alienate/disgust too much of the electorate. If I was a Republican, I'd want someone like Huntsman as he does worry me if he won the nomination.

Oh, I don't know that we disagree. I just consider a Palin or Paul completely out of any serious discussion. They'll never make it through the primaries. CNN reports that 56 percent of all Americans have an unfavorable view of Sarah Palin. Ron Paul's approval rating is 41%. Neither of those is high enough for serious consideration.

Jackalope

cheesehead wrote: »

Some say the only Republican candidate that potentially worries the Obama re-election campaign is Huntsman.

Something interesting that I've heard a good bit in the last week is the possibility that Jeb Bush may run. A week ago, I'd have disregarded that rumor as being too far out to consider, but when you hear it on GMA from someone like James Carvell, it becomes a lot more credible.

Carvell said that on paper, Bush is the strongest candidate from either party. Of course, he has to get past the "legacy" issue...but at this point, so does Obama.

I'm not going with this yet, but I did think it was very interesting.

Brussels Sprout

Jackalope wrote: »

Something interesting that I've heard a good bit in the last week is the possibility that Jeb Bush may run. A week ago, I'd have disregarded that rumor as being too far out to consider, but when you hear it on GMA from someone like James Carvell, it becomes a lot more credible.

Carvell said that on paper, Bush is the strongest candidate from either party. Of course, he has to get past the "legacy" issue...but at this point, so does Obama.

I'm not going with this yet, but I did think it was very interesting.

3 Bush's in the space of 5 presidencies-come on!

Although if he did miraculously become president he could continue in the family tradition and invade/start a war with Iraq.

Jackalope

Or, he could continue the tradition set by Democratic Presidents before him by allowing Islamic terrorists to attack America with impunity; without any fear of retaliation.

So many options, so little time.

Memnoch

Jackalope wrote: »

Or, he could continue the tradition set by Democratic Presidents before him by allowing Islamic terrorists to attack America with impunity; without any fear of retaliation.

So many options, so little time.

This makes no sense.

kev9100

Jackalope wrote: »

Or, he could continue the tradition set by Democratic Presidents before him by allowing Islamic terrorists to attack America with impunity; without any fear of retaliation.

So many options, so little time.

Eh what? It was a Republican President that failed to stop 9/11. It was a Democratic President that killed the guy who did 9/11.

coonecb1

Jackalope wrote: »

Or, he could continue the tradition set by Democratic Presidents before him by allowing Islamic terrorists to attack America with impunity; without any fear of retaliation.

So many options, so little time.

Yeah, I hate the way Osama bin Laden got away scot-free for that whole 9/11 thing

Jackalope

Not a lot of point in trying to discuss it if all I'm going to get is partisan sound bytes.

I already know you don't like Bush. That pony has already ridden to the sunset.

Funglegunk

Jackalope wrote: »

Not a lot of point in trying to discuss it if all I'm going to get is partisan sound bytes.

I already know you don't like Bush. That pony has already ridden to the sunset.

You don't think "Or, he could continue the tradition set by Democratic Presidents before him by allowing Islamic terrorists to attack America with impunity; without any fear of retaliation." is a partisan soundbyte?

Jackalope

Funglegunk wrote: »

You don't think "Or, he could continue the tradition set by Democratic Presidents before him by allowing Islamic terrorists to attack America with impunity; without any fear of retaliation." is a partisan soundbyte?

I think it was a response to "Although if he did miraculously become president he could continue in the family tradition and invade/start a war with Iraq"

I'd much rather talk about his realistic political chances than listen to a re-hash of eight years of Democratic shots at his brother.

Let me be clear, I didn't vote for Bush. It would be doubtful if I'd vote for his brother. That said, I did not disagree with the need to invade Iraq (although I did have a lot of criticism for the military strategy used). Nor do I give President Obama any particular credit for getting Osama bin Laden. The military got the intelligence, found him and executed him. I have great admiration for the SEALS who carried out the mission. As for Mr. Obama's role, I can only ask what anyone thinks any President would've done had they been presented with bin Laden in their lap? Can anyone envision a President saying "No" to this operation?

I don't criticize Mr. Obama for this operation. I simply give him the credit he is due. He was in the right place at the right time.

Funglegunk

Jackalope wrote: »

As for Mr. Obama's role, I can only ask what anyone thinks any President would've done had they been presented with bin Laden in their lap? Can anyone envision a President saying "No" to this operation?

I don't criticize Mr. Obama for this operation. I simply give him the credit he is due. He was in the right place at the right time.

I doubt that you would be saying the same thing if a Republican was in office.

It was morbidly fascinating to watch the American right squirming to try and attribute this to anyone but Obama, (even citing Bush, the man who disbanded the CIA Bin Laden unit in 2005!), and imply that this 'landed in Obama's lap' as you say. Look at the paragraph below:

Bush was the one who, soon after taking office, massively ramped up CIA activity in Pakistan. Bush was the one who explicitly said during his campaign that he intended to capture or kill Bin Laden if he was found to be hiding in Pakistan. Bush had significant input and was kept closely in the loop in formulating a plan once the compound was discovered in August. It was Bush who eventually authorised the operation once it was determined there was enough intelligence to act.

Sounds great for Bush right?! What a ledge. Now switch the word Obama with the word Bush.

Jackalope wrote: »

Can anyone envision a President saying "No" to this operation?

Yes. Watch the 2008 presidential debates, as this is exactly what McCain said he would not do.

Jackalope

Funglegunk wrote: »

I doubt that you would be saying the same thing if a Republican was in office.

And you would be wrong. As I stated earlier, I am not a Republican either. I have voted for the Libertarian candidate for the last four elections. I was never a fan of George Bush either. I did however, agree with his foreign policies. It was his domestic agenda that I disagreed with.

Funglegunk wrote: »

It was morbidly fascinating to watch the American right squirming to try and attribute this to anyone but Obama, (even citing Bush, the man who disbanded the CIA Bin Laden unit in 2005!), and imply that this 'landed in Obama's lap' as you say. Look at the paragraph below:

Bush was the one who, soon after taking office, massively ramped up CIA activity in Pakistan. Bush was the one who explicitly said during his campaign that he intended to capture or kill Bin Laden if he was found to be hiding in Pakistan. Bush had significant input and was kept closely in the loop in formulating a plan once the compound was discovered in August. It was Bush who eventually authorised the operation once it was determined there was enough intelligence to act.

Sounds great for Bush right?! What a ledge. Now switch the word Obama with the word Bush.

You can switch it with George Washington if you like, but it still doesn't matter. I really get tired of this continual idea that if you criticize a Democrat, it's only because you're a Republican.

No person sitting in the President's chair would've failed to authorize this operation. It was the first real chance to get bin Laden in eight years.

As always, I give the credit to the SEALS and to the intelligence community for this breakthrough. They're the ones who did the work and took the risks.

IMO, you'd have a much better case to praise Obama with the Somali pirate incident than the bin Laden execution. That took a great deal more leadership.

Memnoch

You fail to acknowledge that the US's activity in Pakistan increased greatly as a result of Obama's directive. Including missile strikes and intel gathering. This was a broad strategic decision, unpopular to many on the left that ultimately led to the discovery of Bin Laden.

As has been already pointed out, McCain already said in 2008 that he wouldn't go into Pakistan, so for you to say any president would have made that decision is nonsense.

I don't agree with many of Obama's policies. I'm not really in agreement on the execution of Bin Laden either (I believe he should have been captured and tried), but give credit where it's due. Your comments on Obama seem highly partisan and unfair.

Exile 1798

Jackalope wrote: »

I think it was a response to "Although if he did miraculously become president he could continue in the family tradition and invade/start a war with Iraq"

I'd much rather talk about his realistic political chances than listen to a re-hash of eight years of Democratic shots at his brother.

Let me be clear, I didn't vote for Bush. It would be doubtful if I'd vote for his brother. That said, I did not disagree with the need to invade Iraq (although I did have a lot of criticism for the military strategy used). Nor do I give President Obama any particular credit for getting Osama bin Laden. The military got the intelligence, found him and executed him. I have great admiration for the SEALS who carried out the mission. As for Mr. Obama's role, I can only ask what anyone thinks any President would've done had they been presented with bin Laden in their lap? Can anyone envision a President saying "No" to this operation?

I don't criticize Mr. Obama for this operation. I simply give him the credit he is due. He was in the right place at the right time.

It's so nice of you to not criticise the President for this wildly successful operation. How magnanimous of you.:rolleyes:

You say the military got the evidence, found him and executed him. This glibly overlooks the fact that the CIA had no confirmation that it was Bin Laden in the compound and estimated the likelihood at a mere 60%. You also ignore the fact that helicopters and men were sent in to allow for confirmation of Osama's death and evidence gathering as opposed to the less politically risky option of dropping a bomb. You further disregard the fact the Obama made getting Bin Laden a priority from the beginning of his administration, and indeed before that it was a campaign pledge.

But most egregious of all is the way you attempt the obscure in the basic truth that while you claim President Obama deserves no credit for the successful killing of Bin Laden - had anything gone wrong, had soldiers died or been captured, had Bin Laden not been there, had the helicopters been shot down by Pakistan - you would be giving President Obama 100% of the blame. That's the truth, and any discerning observer knows it.

cheesehead

Daniels not running. Do the Republicans start a "draft Christie" campaign?


http://www.indystar.com/article/20110522/NEWS05/110521011/Official-statement-from-Gov-Mitch-Daniels-?odyssey=nav|head

silja

What are everyone's thoughts on Herman Cain? I like his ideas for policies, the "low hanging fruit" wording makes sense, but they are just that- ideas. I don't think he has enough political experience to be President just yet, and may be a bit too honest about the country needing to work hard to get back to strength. Normally, I'd also say he won't get the nomination but with the standard GOP candidates not running, he might just get it.

Amerika

silja wrote: »

What are everyone's thoughts on Herman Cain? I like his ideas for policies, the "low hanging fruit" wording makes sense, but they are just that- ideas. I don't think he has enough political experience to be President just yet, and may be a bit too honest about the country needing to work hard to get back to strength. Normally, I'd also say he won't get the nomination but with the standard GOP candidates not running, he might just get it.

No impact on the race!

He’s a good fiscal conservative, but doesn’t have a clue on foreign affairs or policy. Last I heard he had a $13 (thats thirteen dollars) balance in his Political PAC. The little support he is currently getting is from conservatives who are sending a message that they won’t support a RINO this time around. Still though... it’s good entertainment.