Possible Republican Nominees

[Darrell Hougen]

You ever watch a movie where they've hired a model to play a role, and he parrots the lines, but you can see that no gears are turning in his head as he speaks?

Hannity is like that. He seems to parrot lines he knows a Republican is supposed to say, and does it smoothly, but I'm not sure if he actually understands what he is saying. He seems like nothing more than pretty face to me.

I'd give Hannity a little more credit than that. The thing that bugs me about him is that when he has time to fill, he sometimes has a hard time thinking of anything original to say so he comes off sounding like a salesman that is repeating his sales pitch for the hundredth time.

As to Limbaugh, your comparison is accurate. However, I can sympathize with a plumber and not with Limbaugh and his fans for a few reasons:

1) A plumber does hard and dirty work (my uncle is one) and can be excused a few tacky jokes or comments. Limbaugh makes tacky jokes AND comments all of the time while sitting around talking into a headset.

2) A plumber is not paid a multi-million dollar contract to make those tacky comments.

3) When people hear a plumber make a tacky joke or comment, they laugh politely and brush it off. They don't hail him as their spiritual leader.

4) A plumber's job is to fix pipes and such, not to sit around making tacky comments.

I can see that the tacky comments bother you. I don't blame you. When I was your age, I wouldn't have listened to Limbaugh or Hannity either. When I first heard Limbaugh -- when I was 30 or so -- I couldn't stand him. He absolutely rubbed me the wrong way. Among other things, I couldn't stand listening to someone that could be so non-serious about issues that I thought were serious. And there was the tacky, uncultured aspect of his demeanor as well. I'll still flip him off if he gets too far off track or too ridiculous -- I'm the kind of person that has a hard time watching sitcoms like The Office because I can't stand to watch people act so stupidly. But, I have heard him give a very passionate defense of freedom from time to time with no funny business and no tackiness. And there were a few weeks near the beginning of this year when he would mention Rand almost every other day. So I give him some leeway. But he is an acquired taste, sort of like drinking beer.

Darrell

[Michelle]

You ever watch a movie where they've hired a model to play a role, and he parrots the lines, but you can see that no gears are turning in his head as he speaks?

Hannity is like that. He seems to parrot lines he knows a Republican is supposed to say, and does it smoothly, but I'm not sure if he actually understands what he is saying. He seems like nothing more than pretty face to me.

I'd give Hannity a little more credit than that. The thing that bugs me about him is that when he has time to fill, he sometimes has a hard time thinking of anything original to say so he comes off sounding like a salesman that is repeating his sales pitch for the hundredth time.

As to Limbaugh, your comparison is accurate. However, I can sympathize with a plumber and not with Limbaugh and his fans for a few reasons:

1) A plumber does hard and dirty work (my uncle is one) and can be excused a few tacky jokes or comments. Limbaugh makes tacky jokes AND comments all of the time while sitting around talking into a headset.

2) A plumber is not paid a multi-million dollar contract to make those tacky comments.

3) When people hear a plumber make a tacky joke or comment, they laugh politely and brush it off. They don't hail him as their spiritual leader.

4) A plumber's job is to fix pipes and such, not to sit around making tacky comments.

I can see that the tacky comments bother you. I don't blame you. When I was your age, I wouldn't have listened to Limbaugh or Hannity either. When I first heard Limbaugh -- when I was 30 or so -- I couldn't stand him. He absolutely rubbed me the wrong way. Among other things, I couldn't stand listening to someone that could be so non-serious about issues that I thought were serious. And there was the tacky, uncultured aspect of his demeanor as well. I'll still flip him off if he gets too far off track or too ridiculous -- I'm the kind of person that has a hard time watching sitcoms like The Office because I can't stand to watch people act so stupidly. But, I have heard him give a very passionate defense of freedom from time to time with no funny business and no tackiness. And there were a few weeks near the beginning of this year when he would mention Rand almost every other day. So I give him some leeway. But he is an acquired taste, sort of like drinking beer.

Darrell

It's just my evaluation. I might be wrong. But Hannity's face just looks... poised and empty.

As to Limbaugh, not everything that comes out of his mouth is bad. I actually rather enjoyed his CPAC speech. But, from what I've heard of him, the bad overwhelms the good. I'll grant that he has his moments, but positioning him as the voice of the Republicans? The spiritual leader of the Republicans? You could do worse, I suppose, but you could also do far, far better.

[Selene]

More specifically, a 'prevent the slope from becoming slippery' argument, but I see your objection.

Now, you said: "but in my view, just about any Republican is better than just about any Democrat." Really? Call Bill Clinton what you like, but federal spending actually grew less under him than under either of the Bushes. What does it say when a "tax-and-spend" liberal is doing better for the country than a Republican? It points to the fact that the Republicans gave up defending freedom years ago. They kept the rhetoric, but the records say otherwise. We haven't had a good "viable" Republican candidate since Reagan.

I won't vote for a Democrat or a Republican because they're a Democrat or a Republican. I'll vote for the one who has the superior record of defending freedom (or who will do the least amount of damage to freedom). You can play these partisan games if you like. I won't.

Christian Nationalism is a label invented by opponents to describe real tendencies and small movements in the Christian community. Not all opponents of mysticism are "lefties," you know.

PS: Real "conservatives" are unprincipled. To be a conservative is to support the status quo. A conservative in a communist country would be a communist.

That said, you mean real defenders of capitalism and freedom. Most of them seem to have become libertarians.

I would like to help reform the GOP and make right the political right. But we can have no illusions about what the Republicans have become.

Hell, the only reason the left has gotten its collective foot in the door recently is because so many Republicans have helped to destroy our economy and have gotten involved in so many scandals that people don't trust them any more.

Supporting the status quo is one definition of "conservative," but the conservative movement in this country is identified with a generally pro-freedom stance. People like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Mark Steyn, Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell, etc., are explicitly pro-freedom in their philosophy. Many of them call themselves "Reagan" conservatives. I guess that's what I'm talking about. I'm also talking about organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and National Review, for example. Of course, I prefer people and organizations that are more explicitly pro-freedom, but I can live with the modern conservative movement. Have you ever visited townhall.com? Not all defenders of freedom are libertarians you know.

The problem with being non-partisan is that the party governs. The individual doesn't. Yes, you can have the Congress and White House controlled by different parties, but within the Congress, if the Democrats are in charge, you get Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc., whether you want them or not.

Darrell

Well, yes, they are called conservatives here. It is funny: the libertarians took the name in the seventies because liberal had already been hijacked by the left. Go to Europe, however, and the meanings are reversed: libertarians are "democratic socialists" (isn't that an oxymoron?) and liberals are proponents of freedom.

Generally a good list. I can't possibly imagine what you could see in Hannity or Limbaugh, though. I would add Larry Elder and Walter E. Williams to that list.

Yes, non-partisan activism and voting is a huge problem for me, for the exact reason you mention. I cannot, in good conscience, call myself an independent. I'm not. I'm a supporter of capitalism. I have principles. But I just can't, in good conscience, call myself a Republican either. I disagree with party-line Republicans on almost every social issue, and I feel their economic views are usually not free market enough. I cannot call myself a libertarian, either, because I do not share their paranoid distrust of government and dreams of anarchism. Government is good and proper when it is properly controlled.

Classical liberal would fit you Michelle, in the Senator Taft mold. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taft or

constitutionalist conservative or constitutionalist libertarian.

I do agree with you Michelle 70-85% of the Republican Party Structural Regulars, e.g. the new RNC chairman, our token negro, he reminds me of what Casey Stengel said when the Yankees got Elston Howard, the ole fox shook his head and said "Look at this crap, we finally get one of em and he

cain't run!"

Still can't shake this sports bug. And by the way O'Biwan does throw like a girl!

Adam

Edited July 17, 2009 by Selene

[Selene]

Here are the projected match-ups in the fantasy political league for 2012!

2012 Match-ups: Obama, Romney Tied at 45%; Obama 48%, Palin 42%

Monday, July 20, 2009

Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis

Advertisement

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, President Obama and possible Republican nominee Mitt Romney would be all tied up at 45% each, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

The president, seeking a second four-year term, beats another potential GOP rival, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, by six points – 48% to 42%.

In both match-ups, seven percent (7%) like some other candidate, with three percent (3%) undecided.

Palin is second only to Romney as the presidential candidate Republican voters say right now that they’ll vote for in 2012 state GOP primaries. But she’s also one of two candidates they least hope wins the party’s nomination.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.

Just 21% of voters nationwide say Palin should run as an independent if she loses the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Sixty-three percent (63%) say the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee should not run as an independent. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

If Romney secured the GOP nomination and Palin chose to run as an independent candidate, Obama would win the resulting three-way race with 44% of the vote. Romney is the choice of 33% of the voters under that scenario, with Palin a distant third with 16% support. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

Last November, Obama defeated Republican presidential nominee John McCain by a 53% to 46% margin.

When Romney is the Republican nominee, he beats Obama among unaffiliated voters 48% to 41%. But when Palin is the GOP candidate, unaffiliated voters prefer Obama by a 47% to 41% margin.

Men prefer the Republican over Obama whether it’s Romney or Palin, while women like the president better in both match-ups. Palin continues to fare more poorly among women than her male rivals.

In a three-way race, Palin hurts Romney by drawing 28% Republican support. Romney captures 52% of the GOP vote in that scenario.

In a three way race, unaffiliated voters break 40% for the president, 39% for Romney and 14% for Palin.

Nearly one-third of Republicans (32%) say Palin should run as an independent is she fails to get the party’s nomination.

But 40% of Republican voters say Palin’s decision to resign as governor of Alaska hurts her chances of winning the party’s presidential nomination in 2012.

Those who say economic and fiscal issues are their biggest concerns make up the majority of Republican voters, and Romney runs best among those voters if the 2012 GOP Presidential Primary in their state was held today. Palin is the top choice for those Republicans who put national security first and ties Romney for first among voters who list economic issues alone as the priority.

In mid-May, 37% of Republican voters said their party was leaderless, but this was a major improvement from March when 68% felt that way.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.

[blackhorse]

Romney would be one of the worst possible GOP candidates. He screwed the State of Massachusett's with his own version of Obamacare; Romneycare.

[BaalChatzaf]

If there is not another Barry Goldwater in the house, give up on the Republicans.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Here are the projected match-ups in the fantasy political league for 2012!

2012 Match-ups: Obama, Romney Tied at 45%; Obama 48%, Palin 42%

Monday, July 20, 2009

Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis

Advertisement

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, President Obama and possible Republican nominee Mitt Romney would be all tied up at 45% each, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

The president, seeking a second four-year term, beats another potential GOP rival, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, by six points – 48% to 42%.

In both match-ups, seven percent (7%) like some other candidate, with three percent (3%) undecided.

Palin is second only to Romney as the presidential candidate Republican voters say right now that they'll vote for in 2012 state GOP primaries. But she's also one of two candidates they least hope wins the party's nomination.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.

Just 21% of voters nationwide say Palin should run as an independent if she loses the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Sixty-three percent (63%) say the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee should not run as an independent. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

If Romney secured the GOP nomination and Palin chose to run as an independent candidate, Obama would win the resulting three-way race with 44% of the vote. Romney is the choice of 33% of the voters under that scenario, with Palin a distant third with 16% support. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

Last November, Obama defeated Republican presidential nominee John McCain by a 53% to 46% margin.

When Romney is the Republican nominee, he beats Obama among unaffiliated voters 48% to 41%. But when Palin is the GOP candidate, unaffiliated voters prefer Obama by a 47% to 41% margin.

Men prefer the Republican over Obama whether it's Romney or Palin, while women like the president better in both match-ups. Palin continues to fare more poorly among women than her male rivals.

In a three-way race, Palin hurts Romney by drawing 28% Republican support. Romney captures 52% of the GOP vote in that scenario.

In a three way race, unaffiliated voters break 40% for the president, 39% for Romney and 14% for Palin.

Nearly one-third of Republicans (32%) say Palin should run as an independent is she fails to get the party's nomination.

But 40% of Republican voters say Palin's decision to resign as governor of Alaska hurts her chances of winning the party's presidential nomination in 2012.

Those who say economic and fiscal issues are their biggest concerns make up the majority of Republican voters, and Romney runs best among those voters if the 2012 GOP Presidential Primary in their state was held today. Palin is the top choice for those Republicans who put national security first and ties Romney for first among voters who list economic issues alone as the priority.

In mid-May, 37% of Republican voters said their party was leaderless, but this was a major improvement from March when 68% felt that way.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free) or follow us on Twitter. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

Fascinating - this post was in July 2009 and here we are with the following "shocking poll" released today by Marist, which is an excellent polling company, however, in this one they typically over surveyed Democrats:

Look out President Barack Obama. Even Sarah Palin's gaining on you.

A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds that Obama looks increasingly vulnerable in next year's election, with a majority of voters believing he'll lose to any Republican, a solid plurality saying they'll definitely vote against him and most potential Republican challengers gaining on him.

Even in potential matchups where he leads, Obama in most cases has lost ground to the Republican.

The biggest gain came for Palin, the former Alaska governor who hasn't yet announced whether she'll jump into the fast-changing race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

After trailing Obama by more than 20 percentage points in polls all year, the new national survey, taken Sept. 13-14,

found Palin trailing the president by just 5 points, 49-44 percent.

The key reason: She now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround.

Overall, the gains among Republicans "speak to Obama's decline among independents generally, and how the middle is not his right now," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, which conducted the national survey.

Read more: http://www.miamihera...l#ixzz1bNVt9gFJ

By a margin of 49 percent to 36 percent, voters said they definitely plan to vote against Obama, according to the poll. Independents by 53 percent to 28 percent said they definitely plan to vote against him.

^^^^ the above stat is devastating

Adam

Edited September 21, 2011 by Selene

[Selene]

http://www.newsmax.c...09/23/id/412133

Newsmax has learned that the effort to draft Christie culminated in a hush-hush powwow held in the past week with Christie and several notable Republican billionaires.

"I think what the country is thirsting for, more than anything else right now, is someone of stature and credibility to tell them that and say, 'Here's where I want us to go to deal with this crisis,'" Christie said.

Christie continued: "The fact that nobody yet who's running for president, in my view, has done that effectively is why you continue to hear people ask Daniels if he'll reconsider and ask me if I'll reconsider."

Christie has consistently and categorically stated that he would not run for president in 2012, noting he had significant work still to accomplish in New Jersey.

But New Jersey and New York Republican donors and bundlers who have backed Christie also have been courted in the past several months by Texas Gov. Perry's campaign.

Senior aides to Christie have been quietly urging his supporters not to commit to Perry, indicating Christie was still mulling a bid and would make a final decision after New Jersey's legislative races are completed in November.

But the rapidly changing primary landscape may be changing that timetable.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Selene

[PDS]

I must say that Christie could be the best of that lot.

[Selene]

I must say that Christie could be the best of that lot.

Agreed.

Except for his stands on global warming which is abysmal, the second amendment which is abysmal and a few other issues. However, he has balls, and right now, that is a commodity that is solely lacking in national politics.

He is an excellent speaker also and frankly, would take O'biwan the boy fascist prince and incredible shrinking President apart in a one on one debate.

Adam

[Selene]

Folks:

I am not sure when this event took place, but I did not perceive Romney as "losing his cool with a reporter" at all. Frankly, I thought he handled it quite well. I think his asshole advance man was incredibly stupid at the end, not to mention, incredibly wrong about how a candidate for President is to be treated.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

In the beginning of this thread is a poll result from the Spring of 2009 which had O'bama at 45% and Romney at 45% which basically means that despite all the "shock and awe," money and media exposure there has been not much change in the numbers.

Adam

[sbeaulieu]

Adam,

Romney did good in handling that situation. His advice guy probably took the attack personally since the reporter's comment was directed at discrediting Romney. I probably would have done the same thing, honestly. Now, if it proved true and it was ruffling his feathers, that's another story. But you need facts, which the reporter didn't seem to have.

~ Shane

[Selene]

Adam,

Romney did good in handling that situation. His advice guy probably took the attack personally since the reporter's comment was directed at discrediting Romney. I probably would have done the same thing, honestly. Now, if it proved true and it was ruffling his feathers, that's another story. But you need facts, which the reporter didn't seem to have.

~ Shane

Shane:

Agreed as to Romney. I thought he was solid. I was rather surprised. He has learned a lot in four (4) years.

However, his advance guy is totally unprofessional and you cannot let the media poke you for a sound bite. I have been in that position and I would have smiling put my hand on the dude's shoulder and set up an appointment with Mitt and him right there while it was being filmed.

We could always cancel, but we would not have that negative air and we would be in control. Very undisciplined campaign worker. He would have been trained better in my organization. I am a nice guy, but I expect military precision in a political campaign in public.

Adam

[sbeaulieu]

Adam,

I see your point. Perception is everything, and everyone is watching. I suppose little miffs like that could lose a few votes if portrayed correctly by the opposition. Even Romney telling the guy "Let's talk" should have put the cap on that situation. If the head dog confronts the mewling cat and it backs down, I'm not going in after to get in a cheap shot.

~ Shane

[Selene]

Adam,

I see your point. Perception is everything, and everyone is watching. I suppose little miffs like that could lose a few votes if portrayed correctly by the opposition. Even Romney telling the guy "Let's talk" should have put the cap on that situation. If the head dog confronts the mewling cat and it backs down, I'm not going in after to get in a cheap shot.

~ Shane

Shane:

Exactly. It was about the campaign worker's ego, not the team. Apply it to a military operation, you would not want that clown on your mission team.

More critically, you hit on the key point of any political campaign which is to identify your voter, reinforce that identified voter and deliver that identified voter to the polling place on election day. It is that simple.

Moreover, when I run a campaign, we have a wonderful relaxed fun atmosphere, but from the first meeting, I make it brutally clear that every single action is dedicated to the goal of getting our identified voter to the poll on election day.

The second task is to suppress the oppositions voter operation. Disinformation, innuedo, infiltration and a number of other strategies are second in importance.

"Looking good" is irrelevant. Ego is checked at the door. A political campaign is a war without a lot of blood shed, but it is a war and all's fair in love and war.

Sorry to be realistic, but this is the way it is. You fight for every single vote.

JFK won the 1960 election by less than one (1) vote per election district nationwide.

Adam

[sbeaulieu]

That's one arena I do not ever want to climb into. I'd gladly be a spectator, though. Some of those debates can be a real popcorn-eatin' thrill!

~ Shane

[Selene]

That's one arena I do not ever want to climb into. I'd gladly be a spectator, though. Some of those debates can be a real popcorn-eatin' thrill!

~ Shane

Shane:

Lol. I fully understand. I love it. It is an intense natural high that exponentially builds to election day. I do not think that I have ever slept the day before and election day.

Only playing in a championship football game in an unlimited money league and an actual firefight in Tennessee exceeded the adrenaline rush of a full blooded political campaign.

But I can understand that it is not for everyone.

Adam

[sbeaulieu]

Adam,

Don't get me wrong, I think the positive aspects of getting everything right and the success would be exhilirating. But the dark side of politics is what I don't care for. I can't see myself doing the mud-slinging, unless the other team was pushing out lies. But I've seen some campaign ads that made me cringe because they were attacks when they could have used that money to push those positive aspects of their campaign vs throwing the competition under the bus just for the sake of throwing them under the bus. Of course, I'm sure it's not always like that. In your experience, what would you say the percentage of focus is towards your team's agenda as opposed to other guys in campaigning/ads?

~ Shane

[Selene]

Adam,

Don't get me wrong, I think the positive aspects of getting everything right and the success would be exhilirating. But the dark side of politics is what I don't care for. I can't see myself doing the mud-slinging, unless the other team was pushing out lies. But I've seen some campaign ads that made me cringe because they were attacks when they could have used that money to push those positive aspects of their campaign vs throwing the competition under the bus just for the sake of throwing them under the bus. Of course, I'm sure it's not always like that. In your experience, what would you say the percentage of focus is towards your team's agenda as opposed to other guys in campaigning/ads?

~ Shane

Shane:

Understood. My approach is always to identify election district by election district the problems that the citizens identify.

So one of my first poll questions is what are the top three (3) problems that you are most concerned about in your neighborhood?

Now, you will get answers from the catchbasin that overflows at the corner of x and y; or the lack of police prescence or the local school is awful.

All politics is local. Later in the poll, depending on the level of the office, we ask the top three problems in your county, city, village, state, etc.

From this we develop positive programs to advocate, but we are always preparing for the other sides attacks and then we counterpunch with ads like:

We could mention opponent x's shady awards of highways contracts, but we would rather talk about our plan to clean up the bidding process with law xyz which would use your money to effectively correct local roadway conditions caused by the lack of drainage like you see at the corner of x and y every time it rains or snows.

I think that is a sharper, more honest and, frankly, exceptionally effective position.

Adam

[sbeaulieu]

I think that is a sharper, more honest and, frankly, exceptionally effective position.

Indeed

~ Shane