Republican Presidential Candidates

Post by **Holbytla** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:17 am

People are forever trying to reinvent the wheel or to keep progressing.
The GOP is in need of some fresh air and Palin is certainly something different.

Her likeability factor may not run too deep or last for very long, but for whatever reason it exists now and there is a section of the GOP that endorses it.

Post by **Lidless** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:36 am

Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.
Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004)

Suppose the Dems start to get their act together and pass meaningful legislation and Obama's poularity is such that he's a shoe-in for 2012. Which GOP potential leader would want to waste their political and backers' capital at that point, rather than wait until 2016?

It might well be that Palin gets the nomination just based on that. Of course, if by some bewildering turn of events she wins, her first executive order would be to change the name of the country to "This Great Nation Of Ours".

Post by **MithLuin** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:47 am

Lidless wrote:Suppose the Dems start to get their act together and pass meaningful legislation and Obama's popularity is such that he's a shoe-in for 2012. Which GOP potential leader would want to waste their political and backers' capital at that point, rather than wait until 2016?

This. No one's going to decide to run until they have an opportunity to size up their chances of winning. People can still miscalculate (Hilary Clinton likely thought 2008 was her year to shine), but the party will try to pick someone who has a chance, and the strong candidates will only run if they think they have a chance. So who will run depends a great deal upon how popular Obama is a year or so from now.

Post by **halplm** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:49 am

this is true, and it is IMHO the reason Fred Thomson never seriously entered the fray in 2008. He knew the Republicans had no chance, and unfortunately, that probably means he won't have a solid chance again. I am personally curious why he has completely left the public stage, although I expect he probably just wants to be left alone

.

A lot depends on the makeup of congress after 2010.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:26 pm

Lidless posed this question

Suppose the Dems start to get their act together and pass meaningful legislation and Obama's poularity is such that he's a shoe-in for 2012. Which GOP potential leader would want to waste their political and backers' capital at that point, rather than wait until 2016?

Good question. You have to go back to George Washington to find an uncontested presidential contest so I am confident in saying that there will be shortage of candidates willing to tackle even a popular incumbent president in 2012. Politicians - of any party and ideology - are famous for their belief in their own abilities and their confidence that they can triumph against long odds.

What we have seen in the past nine months should only encourage Republican candidates as the popularity of President Obama has gone down. If, as Lidless suggests, Obama gets it together with some successes and his popularity goes up, that might discourage a more establishment candidate like a Romney but there will still be others to vie for the nomination.

We should remember that the Republican contest will not be purely a Republican contest. It is well and good to discuss the various factions which make up the Republican party and who they might favor in 2012. But let us not forget that over 35 million people voted in the Democratic presidential primaries just last year. 35 million people is a whole lot of people when they will not have a real contest of their own to decide in the primary season of 2012. If President Obama is unchallenged within his own party and the nomination is simply given to him, what happens to the political activity of those 35 million in the first six months of 2012?

Many states have open primaries where people can vote in any party primary they want to vote in simply because that is the hot race of the moment. In 2012, the Republican primaries will be the hot and contested races. Even in states with closed primaries, many allow people to register by a certain deadline to change their ability to vote where they want to vote.

What happens to those 35 million Democratic primary voters could have influence over the Republican candidate in 2012.

Post by **Ellienor** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:42 pm

I cannot imagine a President of the United States named "Fred."

Just cannot happen.

I think the guy to keep an eye on is Pawlenty in 2012. He's going to be able to appeal to the independents and the conservative democrats (witness which state he is the governor of).

Jindal is a no-go. I watched the "Howdy Doody" speech.

Post by **Whistler** » Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:29 pm

I'm in Louisiana, and I like Jindal. I've seen him face-to-face, and he's highly intelligent.

But the speech was awful, yes. He does not speak like that: He must have been following instructions from some "expert" to be as bad as he was. Whoever it was needs to be (metaphorically) hanged.

Judge Jindal as you will, but please not on the basis of that.

Post by **Cenedril_Gildinaur** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:15 am

Even if no serious contender comes forward in 2012 that does not mean the GOP won't put someone forward - the illusion must be maintained at all costs. Most likely it will be a throw-away candidate like Kerry, Dole, or Mondale - someone credible enough to keep the show going but not wasting a real candidate.

Post by **MithLuin** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:50 am

Well obviously somebody will run. There's never been a shortage of candidates. But it's too soon to predict who those somebodies will be. A lot changes in 4 years and not everyone can be a Ralph Nader and continue to keep running again and again and again

.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:12 am

A lot does change in 4 years, and it may well be that Obama will be defeatable by then. At this point he's managing the difficult trick of disheartening and dispiriting his strongest supporters without even slightly decreasing the vehemence of the people who oppose him most strongly.

Post by **Ellienor** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:28 pm

Isn't there also some kind of so-called "dirt" on Jindal about how he used state planes and/or helicopters to go to various churches on Sundays to give talks, or something like that? I imagine that could be a problem for him if he decides to run.

If Jindal is better than the Howdy Doody speech that would be good. I don't think much of a speaker that leaves me feeling insulted for being spoken to like I'm an idiot.

But then, not too many Republican speakers would please me.

(I was impressed with Palin's speech, though. )

Post by **Whistler** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:51 pm

He attended my church one Sunday, but no state planes or helicopters were involved.

Nor did he speak. Nor (apart from acknowledging his presence, which was only polite) did the church endorse him.

He came, he sat through the sermon and he left. No big deal.

There is no credible "dirt" on Jindal that I am aware of, and I'm in Baton Rouge where I would hear of it.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:53 pm

Anybody remember the speech Bill Clinton gave at the 1988 Democratic Convention? It was a real dud. He seemed to do okay despite that setback and today is known for his ability to communicate his ideas to the people.

This is from the Wikipedia entry on Governor Jindal regarding the helicopters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_jindal

Use of Taxpayer Funded Helicopters to Churches
In mid-2009, the Advocate newspaper in Baton Rouge reviewed helicopter records obtained through public information requested and verified that from March 2, 2009 to July 20, 2009, Jindal used taxpayer funded helicopter and State Police pilots to travel to far-flung parts of the state to attend various church services. A total of 14 trips were taken with a cost of $1,200 per hour to operate, about $45,000. It is believed that there are numerous other church service related helicopter travel not accounted and the costs would greatly exceed early estimates. Jindal's decision to use taxpayer fund to attend church services has been called into question, considering the State budget shortfall. Many believe such misuse of State funding warrant a thorough investigation. To date, no investigation has been conducted.

Post by **Whistler** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:57 pm

Jindal's problem was that he didn't know how to present himself before a national audience. He wasn't used to the major league.

So he got somebody to tell him what to do, and they steered him horribly wrong.

And yes, Clinton's speech in 1988 is still the gold standard for disastrous oratory.

EDIT: I'm from The Advocate, and as far as I'm aware this story has been put to rest.

Post by **Ellienor** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:38 pm

How has the story been "put to rest" exactly?

edit: I see from the Wiki entry that he has also signed into law the teaching of "intelligent design."

Shall we say, not my kind of politician.

Post by **Whistler** » Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:53 pm

Well, I certainly don't mean that it's been suppressed or otherwise buried. Our reporters are (to put it mildly) an aggressive bunch.

I only mean that I don't hear much about it these days. But understand that I'm a humble artist, not a reporter, and cannot report on the matter with any authority. For all I know, there may be a bombshell tomorrow.

I'm simply unaware of one, that's all.

Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:12 pm

You're certainly in a better position to judge whether there was anything to the story than any of the rest of us.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:27 pm

The National Review Online has a pretty detailed article on Mitt Romney and possible strategy for 2012.

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/? ... GUwMmYyMjY

They clearly label him as the GOP frontrunner.

Post by **Ellienor** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:41 pm

I say Pawlenty. Romney reminds me of Edwards. Too slick.

Post by **Cerin** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:56 pm

I think they'll try to get Petraeus.