GOP Nominee 2012 - who will it be?

[yolland]

It's widely assumed in Indiana that their marital history, and more specifically her desire to keep it private, is his main point of hesitation over running. It shouldn't be an issue, by all rights it's wholly irrelevant and nobody's business, but unfortunately that's not how presidential campaigns work.

 

[deep]

she had an extended doctor's visit

she is now back home, happily married, where Jesus wants her to be.
One man, one woman, and not killing unborn babies.

no need to be perfect, just Jesus-forgiven.

 

[INDY500]

After the 2008 Messiahpalooza I guess I can't blame my liberal friends for being indifferent to the Republican search for a mortal political with executive experience.

 

[the iron horse]

I don't know the Libertarian candidate yet, but right
now I like Herman Caine for the Republican choice.


Herman Cain - Presidential Exploratory Committee

 

[PhilsFan]

Yes, all liberals worship Rolling Stone! Great stuff as always, INDY.

 

[Canadiens1131]

"It's a shame that young people don't get more involved in politics."

Young people go nuts for a candidate in 2008 and actually take an interest.

Mocked by the Right for getting involved in politics.

 

[Irvine511]

After the 2008 Messiahpalooza I guess I can't blame my liberal friends for being indifferent to the Republican search for a mortal political with executive experience.

what did the Republicans do between 2001-2009 that makes you think they deserve to be anywhere near the White House?

 

[AchtungBono]

what did the Republicans do between 2001-2009 that makes you think they deserve to be anywhere near the White House?

They've kept you alive and safe and protected from another 911.....

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

They've kept you alive and safe and protected from another 911.....

so you have proof that the republicans foiled a large-scale terrorist attempt, then? just because nothing happened didn't mean it wouldn't have been the same with a democratic president.

 

[AchtungBono]

so you have proof that the republicans foiled a large-scale terrorist attempt, then? just because nothing happened didn't mean it wouldn't have been the same with a democratic president.

If a democratic president had put into effect all the measures that GWB did, then yes....it would have been the same.

 

[INDY500]

Mocked by the Right for getting involved in politics.

He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones tea bags.

 

[kramwest1]

another 911

^Key phrase

 

[BVS]

They've kept you alive and safe and protected from another 911.....

Drop the Kool Aide!

 

[BoMac]

They've kept you alive and safe and protected from another 911.....

The first attack on the WTC occurred a few weeks into Bill Clinton's presidency, which came after 12 years of a Republican in the White House.

There were no other non-domestic terrorist incidents in the U.S. until 2001, which happened a few months into Bush's presidency.

And there have been, of course, no other attacks since then.

I don't buy into the argument, nor will I ever, that one party over the other is more committed to keeping people safe and protected. That's tin foil talk.

But you can continue believing everything that Fox News tells you to think.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

If a democratic president had put into effect all the measures that GWB did, then yes....it would have been the same.

that is a ridiculous comparison. bush was in power during 9/11 and didn't put these measures into place until after the fact. it's unfair to expect obama to do something that's already been done. and as for clinton, if he'd put all these things in place during his presidency, people would've called him nuts and blasted him for wasting so much money. and assuming these measures would've prevented 9/11, this whole conversation would be a moot point.

i mean, really.

 

[kramwest1]

that is a ridiculous comparison. bush was in power during 9/11 and didn't put these measures into place until after the fact. it's unfair to expect obama to do something that's already been done. and as for clinton, if he'd put all these things in place during his presidency, people would've called him nuts and blasted him for wasting so much money. and assuming these measures would've prevented 9/11, this whole conversation would be a moot point.

i mean, really.

I still like Richard Clarke a lot.
I should probably read his Cyber War book. Against All Enemies was good.

Richard A. Clarke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AchtungBono]

The first attack on the WTC occurred a few weeks into Bill Clinton's presidency, which came after 12 years of a Republican in the White House.

There were no other non-domestic terrorist incidents in the U.S. until 2001, which happened a few months into Bush's presidency.

And there have been, of course, no other attacks since then.

I don't buy into the argument, nor will I ever, that one party over the other is more committed to keeping people safe and protected. That's tin foil talk.

But you can continue believing everything that Fox News tells you to think.

Hi Bomac,

I didn't say that one party is more committed than the other to keeping people safe and protected. I was just answering Irvine's question about what the Republicans have done in a decade that would warrant their return to the White House.

And I do believe everything Fox News says because they're the only ones who tell the truth.

 

[AchtungBono]

Drop the Kool Aide!

Hi BVS,

Why? Did I say something that was untrue? It's a fact that there have been no attacks on American soil since 911, primarilly due to the intense measures that the Bush Administration put into effect - why does that mean that I'm a Kool-Aid drinker?



btw - I think Kool-Aid really got a bum deal from what Jim Jones did....because it's actually very good but it will forever be used in a negative way - too bad.

 

[AchtungBono]

that is a ridiculous comparison. bush was in power during 9/11 and didn't put these measures into place until after the fact. it's unfair to expect obama to do something that's already been done. and as for clinton, if he'd put all these things in place during his presidency, people would've called him nuts and blasted him for wasting so much money. and assuming these measures would've prevented 9/11, this whole conversation would be a moot point.

i mean, really.

Hello Khanada,

It's indeed regrettable that the Patriot Act and all these other anti-terror policies were not adapted after the 1993 WTC bombing, when it was very plain that those buildings were prime targets for terrorists. I believe that if Pres. Clinton had done in 1993 what GWB did in 2001 then perhaps 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

That having been said, I don't want you to construe from this that I blame Pres. Clinton for 9/11 - that would be totally wrong.

 

[Diemen]

And I do believe everything Fox News says because they're the only ones who tell the truth.

Oh really? So Obama really is a Muslim Kenyan socialist bent on the destruction of American values then, right?

 

[AchtungBono]

Oh really? So Obama really is a Muslim Kenyan socialist bent on the destruction of American values then, right?

Hi Diemen,

They NEVER said that he's a Muslim Kenyan (at least not on any show I've seen). They do however say that he has a lean towards socialism (especially Beck).

O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity (who are NOT great fans of Obama to say the least) all speak strongly against the "birthers" who are still trying to say that Obama hasn't any right to be president cos he's not a U.S. citizen. They may not agree with what he does but at least they give him a fair shake and if they DO criticize him they always back it up with facts, and if they're proven wrong they will admit that they're wrong.

That's why I respect Fox News.

 

[BVS]

And I do believe everything Fox News says because they're the only ones who tell the truth.

You've seen the Fox News thread, correct? There are dozens of documented lies that the network has aired.

Why? Did I say something that was untrue?

The whole entire world is safer under Obama because not only has there not been one attack on US soil, but Osama is gone under his control.

The Dems are better at it than the Republicans.

Is this untrue?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

msn.com

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney raised more than $10 million on Monday, hoping to scare his 2012 rivals and show primary voters that he alone can raise enough money to compete with President Obama. The former Massachusetts governor hopes to pile up $40 million in a fundraising push in May and June, which would almost certainly give him a huge financial lead over the rest of the GOP field when the quarter ends June 30.

Will Romney's financial muscle-flexing cement his status as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination? Romney's fundraising is a formidable advantage: Romney and his campaign were "confident, or even a little cocky," after his big Las Vegas call-a-thon fundraising effort on Monday, says Jonathan Martin at Politico, and with good reason. He showed off "a fearsome fundraising machine that is almost certain to be unmatched by any other GOP hopeful."

And don't forget the former venture capitalist has his own fortune to tap — he plowed $42 million of his own money into his 2008 campaign. Money matters, and Romney is going to "dwarf the competition financially.""Mitt Romney’s money machine cranks up"Money isn't everything: This dialing-for-dollars haul is a nice way for Romney to change the subject, says Carmen Cox at ABC Radio. Before this, everyone was talking about how his health care reform record in Massachusetts was hurting him with the GOP base. Now we've moved on to "a topic he'd love to talk more about (his fundraising prowess and the economy)."

Of course, "early fundraising success doesn't always guarantee electoral success. Just ask Howard Dean, Rudy Giuliani, or Hillary Clinton." "Mitt Romney's Vegas payoff: Raises $10.25 million in day-long phone-a-thon"This puts pressure on Romney to deliver: "After months of bad press on the Right about RomneyCare," Mitt's "frontrunner status is paper thin," says Allahpundit at Hot Air. Sure, now the media is saying something positive about him for a change. But that puts pressure on Romney to perform well in early primary states — including socially conservative Nevada, where this fundraiser was held. "If he's lapping the field on money, there's less of an excuse him for not to compete."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Wow-while shaking his hand the entire time

YouTube - Iowa Voter to Gingrich: "Why don't you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself"

 

[Irvine511]

i think it's pretty obvious that Newt is going for old, white, scared people. people who get their social security and their medicare and yet want the government to stop handing out food stamps to poor, young, black mothers.

why else would "american identity" and some notion of a citizenship test as a prerequisite to voting be central parts of his platform?

 

[deep]

a quick thought I had as I was reading my morning paper.

Romney has the inside track, money, name recognition, most likely will get the nom.

He will need a V P pick that has some 'gravitas' to shore up his ticket.

Newt could do that.

 

[Irvine511]

i think Pawlenty may well become the "least bad" option for the GOP.

 

[kramwest1]

i think Pawlenty may well become the "least bad" option for the GOP.

I agree, and it's a toss-up whether he would carry Minnesota. We love our native sons, but he was never elected with a statewide majority.

 

[deep]

it's interesting in here

because we have people giving their personal opinions on who is most 'palatable' that would never vote for the other party.

I remember when conservatives were saying Lieberman was the best choice, because in their mind that was one Dem that they could stomach.

2012 will be a vote for a small handful of states, if the GOP can take FL and Ohio, it may be all over. Plus the GOP will make good gains in the Senate, they will definitely take it back.

The good news for the Dems is that the economy is slowly improving, states are starting to see their revenues improving. The GOP will have a good wedge issue to drive, independents, blue collar workers to the polls, this time it will not be the gays, it will be the greedy 'public sector' budget breaking pensions that will be on the ballots.

 

[Irvine511]

this time it will not be the gays

as a total aside, one theory i've been reading is that Cuomo's strong push for marriage equality in NY is a part of his strategy for 2016, that were he to be governor of the second largest state in the country and be seen to have pushed through an issue near and dear to the hearts of many progressive voters, this will give him a huge leg up during the Dem primaries in 2016.

how far we've come since the gay bashing of 2004.