2012 Elections

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:24 am

Smoove_B wrote:
Kraken wrote: Much as I dislike Romney personally, it would be reassuring to see the Republicans nominate a moderate amidst all the extremism.
Didn't Romney take a middle-of-the-road (i.e. reasonable) approach when asked about Evolution? I have no doubt (if I'm recalling his opinion correctly) this will be a problem.

Err, McCain believed in evolution.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:32 am

Defiant wrote:Err, McCain believed in evolution.

Did his official stance change after 2007?

At a 2007 debate at St. Anselm College, McCain was asked if creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the nation's schools. His response: "No, I believe that's up to the school districts. But I think that every American should be exposed to all theories. There's no doubt in my mind that the hand of God was in what we are today. And I do believe that we are unique, and I believe that God loves us. But I also believe that all of our children in school can be taught different views on different issues. I leave the curricula up to the school boards."

That's different than Romney saying in 2007:

While governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney opposed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

“In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed,” he said. “If we’re going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that’s for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies
class.”

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:57 am

msduncan wrote:So far the in-party candidates have been playing nice and going by the Reagan edict of 'thou shalt speak no evil of a fellow Republican".

At least to their face

There's been some sniping between the Palin and Bachmann camps as well.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:06 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
Kraken wrote: Much as I dislike Romney personally, it would be reassuring to see the Republicans nominate a moderate amidst all the extremism.
Didn't Romney take a middle-of-the-road (i.e. reasonable) approach when asked about Evolution? I have no doubt (if I'm recalling his opinion correctly) this will be a problem.

He's also a global warming believer. Heresy!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:27 pm

A lot of media people seem to be assuming that Romney is the Chosen One, everyone knows it, and all the others are jockeying for the Veep spot. But this seems like a very strange way to run a primary, especially when there are so many votes to be grabbed by whoever can claim to be the insurgent True Conservative Anti-Romney. What do people think: will Romney have smooth sailing, or will the pack turn against him?

Follow-up: If Perry jumps in, is Romney automatic toast?

I'm guessing that Perry would get the Palin/Beck/Limbaugh crowd since he's evangelical-friendly and wears boots. It would be easy for mainstream Republicans to accept him the way they won't accept Bachmann or Cain. If he's the one candidate who can unite the Tea Party with the establishment, doesn't that make him the obvious choice?

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:45 pm

Holman wrote:Follow-up: If Perry jumps in, is Romney automatic toast?

No. Perry has some weaknesses ready for exploitation. And since they haven't been beaten to death in the press, the entire campaign season would be replete with agonizingly redundant explorations of each issue. Romney, on the other hand, comes pre-vetted. His issues are already old news, so there's less room to make hay.

If the Romney outfit is smart, they'll start culling endorsements ASAP, though, to discourage Perry from going for it.

I'm guessing that Perry would get the Palin/Beck/Limbaugh crowd since he's evangelical-friendly and wears boots. It would be easy for mainstream Republicans to accept him the way they won't accept Bachmann or Cain. If he's the one candidate who can unite the Tea Party with the establishment, doesn't that make him the obvious choice?

That's the case that'll be made for him, if he enters. But the secondary question might trump the primary one: who can win in November of '12? Romney might have an edge there.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:58 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:That's the case that'll be made for him, if he enters. But the secondary question might trump the primary one: who can win in November of '12? Romney might have an edge there.

Picking an uncharismatic northeastern flip-flopper to take on a sitting president with fair-to middling poll numbers seems like a familiar strategy...

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:50 pm

Exodor wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:That's the case that'll be made for him, if he enters. But the secondary question might trump the primary one: who can win in November of '12? Romney might have an edge there.
Picking an uncharismatic northeastern flip-flopper to take on a sitting president with fair-to middling poll numbers seems like a familiar strategy...

You forgot "with good hair."

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:24 pm

"French-speaking"

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:46 pm

Stop the press. Rick Perry seems close to joining the fray.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:42 am

msduncan wrote:Stop the press. Rick Perry seems close to joining the fray.

Perry might be more effective at drawing the three legs of the stool together -- though I understand he has baggage.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:44 am

msduncan wrote:Stop the press. Rick Perry seems close to joining the fray.

Before Texas Jesus Day?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:32 am

It's a little baffling. George W. Bush is still extraordinarily unpopular - disapproving of him is one thing that most of the country can agree on. The narrative that the GOP ran with too success in 2010 was "we strayed too far from conservative principles, became too fiscally profligate", etc.

So, doesn't it seem monumentally stupid to run in 2012 a religious governor of Texas? Seems like it's serving up an easy "don't return to the Bush years" narrative for Obama?

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:54 am

El Guapo wrote:So, doesn't it seem monumentally stupid to run in 2012 a religious governor of Texas? Seems like it's serving up an easy "don't return to the Bush years" narrative for Obama?

My favorite Perry bit is implying succession because of opposition to the stimulus while simultaneously using stimulus funds to balance the Texas budget.

Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:32 pm

Exodor wrote: My favorite Perry bit is implying succession because of opposition to the stimulus

Does this mean he won't run if Biden runs for the presidency?

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:25 pm

El Guapo wrote:It's a little baffling. George W. Bush is still extraordinarily unpopular - disapproving of him is one thing that most of the country can agree on. The narrative that the GOP ran with too success in 2010 was "we strayed too far from conservative principles, became too fiscally profligate", etc.

So, doesn't it seem monumentally stupid to run in 2012 a religious governor of Texas? Seems like it's serving up an easy "don't return to the Bush years" narrative for Obama?

For all his failings as president, W was a fairly pragmatic Tx governor who was, on the whole, well respected across most lines. Perry, otoh, geez. About the only positive thing about him being elected President would be that he would no longer be focusing his hyper partisan, wing nut bullshit on Texas and we might be able to get some common sense back.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:40 pm

Perry's numbers don't look that good at the moment:

Meanwhile, a newly released Texas Lyceum statewide poll conducted in late May placed Perry slightly behind Paul, a Libertarian Republican. Paul (at 10 percent) and Perry (9 percent) trailed Romney, who garnered 16 percent backing, and Palin, 12 percent.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7614681.html" target="_blank

Of course, not jumping in the race yet might explain part of this.

Still...

Likely voters in Texas approve of President Barack Obama almost as much as they approve of Gov. Rick Perry, according to the third and final release of poll results from the Texas Lyceum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of civic leaders.

Since October, when the last Lyceum survey was conducted, Perry's approval rating has remained steady at 54 percent, while Obama's has increased from 47 to 51 percent. Even though Obama's handling of the national economy specifically — which is the top concern of Texans, according to Tuesday's findings — dropped to 46 percent, this percentage was eight points lower in October, at 38 percent. University of Texas Professor Daron Shaw, who conducted the poll with the assistance of University of Texas at San Antonio Professor Amy Jasperson, said the timing of the poll might be why Obama scored so high among likely voters. Taken between May 24 and May 31, the poll came three weeks after Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden, which "undoubtedly increased" likely voters' support of the president.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-polit ... -in-texas/" target="_blank

I'm kind of surprised that Obama had close to 50% in Texas prior to Osama being killed. Isn't that his national approval rating?

What kind of pinko socialist state is Texas becoming? I blame Fireball.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:32 pm

geezer wrote:
El Guapo wrote:It's a little baffling. George W. Bush is still extraordinarily unpopular - disapproving of him is one thing that most of the country can agree on. The narrative that the GOP ran with too success in 2010 was "we strayed too far from conservative principles, became too fiscally profligate", etc.

So, doesn't it seem monumentally stupid to run in 2012 a religious governor of Texas? Seems like it's serving up an easy "don't return to the Bush years" narrative for Obama?
For all his failings as president, W was a fairly pragmatic Tx governor who was, on the whole, well respected across most lines. Perry, otoh, geez. About the only positive thing about him being elected President would be that he would no longer be focusing his hyper partisan, wing nut bullshit on Texas and we might be able to get some common sense back.

Oh, I know. I'm just talking about the imagery of running a religious Republican Texas governor right after the last one, when the last one is still unpopular. Not exactly a fresh face, I'd think.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:19 pm

Perry could build a groundswell in the primaries not because he's "like Bush" but because he's so *unlike* Obama. In his style and his persona and his big commitments, he's probably more the President's polar opposite than anyone in the GOP field. (Romney's Achilles heel is that when you stand him up next to Obama, he just doesn't read as all that different.)

I was surprised to learn that Perry polls so weakly among Republicans. Is this because he hasn't yet launched his narrative, or does he have some huge flaw for conservatives? I was under the impression that he was the Southern GOP's rising star.

But, yeah, the "Read My Lips: No New Texans" meme kind of writes itself.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:35 pm

Holman wrote:Perry could build a groundswell in the primaries not because he's "like Bush" but because he's so *unlike* Obama. In his style and his persona and his big commitments, he's probably more the President's polar opposite than anyone in the GOP field. (Romney's Achilles heel is that when you stand him up next to Obama, he just doesn't read as all that different.)

I was surprised to learn that Perry polls so weakly among Republicans. Is this because he hasn't yet launched his narrative, or does he have some huge flaw for conservatives? I was under the impression that he was the Southern GOP's rising star.

But, yeah, the "Read My Lips: No New Texans" meme kind of writes itself.

I'm only one southern Republican, but I'll give my reason:

Until recently, I didn't even know his name. So I think you are dead on that he hasn't started his narrative yet. When (if?) he does, I predict that he will wash Romney away.

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:13 pm

Holman wrote:(Romney's Achilles heel is that when you stand him up next to Obama, he just doesn't read as all that different.)

One is white and one is black, that is an important thing for some of those that oppose Obama. For racist white voters that like Obama's policy but can't stand being ruled by a black man, Romney seem to be the best choice.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:10 pm

I thought Jindal out of Louisiana was supposed to be the next one out of the Governor's League.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:19 am

Isgrimnur wrote:I thought Jindal out of Louisiana was supposed to be the next one out of the Governor's League.

That was before he gave his lame rebuttal to Obama's 2009 State of the Union address. He came off as pretty unimpressive, and his stock has fallen since.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:42 am

Victoria Raverna wrote:
Holman wrote:(Romney's Achilles heel is that when you stand him up next to Obama, he just doesn't read as all that different.)
One is white and one is black, that is an important thing for some of those that oppose Obama. For racist white voters that like Obama's policy but can't stand being ruled by a black man, Romney seem to be the best choice.

Don't be ridiculous. The percentage of these voters are insignificant, and they reside on all sides of the aisle.

And any voters that like Obama's policy are NOT going to be voting Republican and have never voted Republican.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:44 am

Isgrimnur wrote:I thought Jindal out of Louisiana was supposed to be the next one out of the Governor's League.

I am curious where Jindal is too. He sorta disappeared. His vanilla rebuttal to Obama's State of the Union was not characteristic to his normal speeches. He's usually pretty sharp.

So I have no idea why he's MIA unless he's banking on an Obama win and his candidacy going full steam 5 years from now?

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:16 am

Jindal said for the 2008 election he wanted to finish his time as Gov. before considering a run for national office. Jindal also has some opponents here in the state on the right wing since he really hasn't been acting that fiscally conservative; wanted to sell prisons to make up budget short falls (despite being shown it costs more in the long run) & promised not to raise taxes then proposed $1 per pack tax increase on cigarettes. He was also the one who asked Mary Landreaux to get that $100M during the Obama Care vote. I don't see him running any time soon, he is too much fluff and not enough crunch IMO.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:18 am

And any voters that like Obama's policy are NOT going to be voting Republican and have never voted Republican.[/quote]

False

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:37 pm

Exodor wrote:
msduncan wrote:So far the in-party candidates have been playing nice and going by the Reagan edict of 'thou shalt speak no evil of a fellow Republican".
At least to their face

There's been some sniping between the Palin and Bachmann camps as well.

DAMN

"It is distressing that Governor Romney refuses to sign the SBA Pledge, even while claiming to be pro-life. The excuses for not signing clearly continue the doubts about his leadership and commitment to ending the practice of abortion – particularly for a candidate who ran as pro-choice for the Senate and Governorship of Massachusetts. Any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death. Governor Romney should reconsider his decision not to sign the Pledge just as he reconsidered his position on the life issue during the last campaign."

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:50 pm

Given that quote I wonder if Bachmann will be pushing the abolition of the death penalty as well. I can't find her stance on that with a few quick searches so she likely hasn't made a public statement on that yet.

Zarathud · Post by **Zarathud** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:23 am

msduncan wrote:And any voters that like Obama's policy are NOT going to be voting Republican and have never voted Republican.

At least not recently.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:59 am

Arcanis wrote:Given that quote I wonder if Bachmann will be pushing the abolition of the death penalty as well. I can't find her stance on that with a few quick searches so she likely hasn't made a public statement on that yet.

I'm sure her stance would be something like "Innocent life does not deserve unnatural death," which makes her internally consistent in this area but no less crazy on the whole.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:50 pm

Gingrich campaign fundraisers quit:

Newt Gingrich's top two fundraising advisers resigned on Tuesday, and officials said the Republican candidate's hobbling presidential campaign carried more than $1 million in debt.

...

Gingrich has insisted that he will not abandon his troubled bid and will continue fighting for the Republican nomination for president "no matter what it takes." He's revamping his campaign, given the series of departures.

I'm sure there's some meta-analysis possible regarding a Republican candidate being a over a million dollars in debt but vowing to continue spending, but I should probably leave it be.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:57 pm

Huntsman joins GOP race for President.

Harry Reid says he prefers Huntsman to Romney. Thanks Harry.

msduncan · Post by **msduncan** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:01 am

Holman wrote:
Arcanis wrote:Given that quote I wonder if Bachmann will be pushing the abolition of the death penalty as well. I can't find her stance on that with a few quick searches so she likely hasn't made a public statement on that yet.
I'm sure her stance would be something like "Innocent life does not deserve unnatural death," which makes her internally consistent in this area but no less crazy on the whole.

And why can't someone be pro-life and pro-death penalty?

I am pro life and also pro death penalty. My reasons aren't religious, however. I believe unborn babies are people/citizens and thus deserve protections. I also believe scumbags that kill people should hang by the neck and listen to their gallows be hammered into place three nights leading up to it. /shrug

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:43 am

msduncan wrote:
Holman wrote:
Arcanis wrote:Given that quote I wonder if Bachmann will be pushing the abolition of the death penalty as well. I can't find her stance on that with a few quick searches so she likely hasn't made a public statement on that yet.
I'm sure her stance would be something like "Innocent life does not deserve unnatural death," which makes her internally consistent in this area but no less crazy on the whole.
And why can't someone be pro-life and pro-death penalty?

I am pro life and also pro death penalty. My reasons aren't religious, however. I believe unborn babies are people/citizens and thus deserve protections. I also believe scumbags that kill people should hang by the neck and listen to their gallows be hammered into place three nights leading up to it. /shrug

Get back to me when you have a foolproof method for determining guilt. Till then, suck it.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:31 am

msduncan wrote:And why can't someone be pro-life and pro-death penalty?

Here's what she said in her statement:

Any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death.

I don't see any wiggle room in there for state-imposed death.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:32 am

msduncan wrote:
Holman wrote:
Arcanis wrote:Given that quote I wonder if Bachmann will be pushing the abolition of the death penalty as well. I can't find her stance on that with a few quick searches so she likely hasn't made a public statement on that yet.
I'm sure her stance would be something like "Innocent life does not deserve unnatural death," which makes her internally consistent in this area but no less crazy on the whole.
And why can't someone be pro-life and pro-death penalty?

I am pro life and also pro death penalty. My reasons aren't religious, however. I believe unborn babies are people/citizens and thus deserve protections. I also believe scumbags that kill people should hang by the neck and listen to their gallows be hammered into place three nights leading up to it. /shrug

I'm saying that her quote would exclude the two. Particularly this line:

Any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death.

So until the whatever method of the death penalty is considered "natural death" i'm fairly certain they are mutually exclusive. I think it was just a poor choice of words taken out of context to be made into something more than it really is, which I did to poke the holes in her campaign that should be done as part of vetting, except I couldn't find a public statement laying out her stance on the death penalty.

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:53 am

Exodor wrote:Here's what she said in her statement:
Any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death.
I don't see any wiggle room in there for state-imposed death.

FYI, the actual pledge says nothing about "natural death" or death penalty issues:

I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting Life. I demand that any candidate I support commit to these positions:

FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:39 pm

Given the long-established terms of debate, there's no contradiction at all between the death penalty and Bachmann's statement. The right-to-life movement is about not only abortion but also euthanasia (witness Terri Schiavo and the panic over "death panels"). You can't say that the term "natural death" ties her hands over the death penalty any more than it paints her into a corner of complete, unwavering pacifism that requires dismantling the military.

----

On Huntsman:

Part of his announcement speech:

As for his pledge of civility, he said, "Our political debates today are corrosive and not reflective of the belief that Abe Lincoln espoused back in his day, that we are a great country because we are a good country."

I went looking, and as far as I can discern, Lincoln never said this. There's a long-standing tradition of attributing a similar line ("America is great because she is good, and she will cease to be great if she ceases to be good") to Alexis de Tocqueville, but this is apparently also a mis-attribution. Does anyone know where the Lincoln line supposedly comes from?

Huntsman seems like a decent sort. He might even fit in with a relatively progressive administration.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:43 pm

AWS260 wrote:
Exodor wrote:Here's what she said in her statement:
Any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death.
I don't see any wiggle room in there for state-imposed death.
FYI, the actual pledge says nothing about "natural death" or death penalty issues:
I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting Life. I demand that any candidate I support commit to these positions:

FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

The fact that they specifically want a staunch pro-lifer at the head of the DoJ says all sorts of (bad) things to me.