Republican Debate

[BobG]

Who did you like? (and notice I used two words in my title since "one word titles may be deleted" :rofl:)

Pawlenty, Bachman, Santorum, and Romney performed well, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not.

Cain gave me absolutely no reason to take him seriously and Paul appeared as out of touch as ever.

Gingrich gave the most bizarre answer when following up Cain's comments about having Muslims on his staff. Gingrich seemed to feel the Joe McCarthy era was a good thing, which is something you don't hear very often.

And one of Romney's answers sounded very strange. He was saying the bailout of car industries was a bad thing and that going through bankruptcy was a better solution, then summed up his argument by saying instead of government getting involved, Obama should have let the car companies solve their own problems the American way. The American way as in declaring bankruptcy? Is that the new version of the American dream? (I know he didn't mean it that way, but it was a strange way to sum up his argument.)

Being unknown seemed to be an asset. Bachman seemed poised and reasonably sane, which was a shock to me. Santorum and Pawlenty made good overall impressions. While Romney did well, it was just hard to shake the image he built in 2008 - an image of being even shallower and possessing less character than even Bill Clinton.

Given that I won't vote for Bachman or Santorum, I think Pawlenty came out impressing me the most.

[mege]

Overall - it was nice to see the candidates showing unity against President Obama. There wasn't the internal fight that you sometimes see this early, that was a nice refresher. I'll admit that the debate was on in the background while I was doing housework - so I didn't catch everything, but here's my thoughts on the individual candidates:

The more I see Herman Cain, the more I'm dissapointed. I don't know if it's nerves, or if he's too cocky, but I had high hopes for him early on - unfortunately his public poise has been horrible. I think he's going to be fading away pretty soon unless he can pull it together.

My yearly ad hoc 'scratches' have been Gingrich and Ron Paul for a long time, and it's not going to change this cycle. From a strategic standpoint, they're both too ugly and too wierd. Neither can be a serious party-supported candidate for president imo. However, since Ron Paul seemed to have the 'consensus' answers and fostered few disagreements with his policy ideas; in a technical manner I think he won - however I still don't like him :p

Romney perpetually reminds me of John Kerry for a multiple reasons, foremost: he keeps wanting to give non-answers (this debate, and the example you gave, were no different). I want to support Romney as I grew up in Michigan, but unfortunately there is little substance I like behind that awesome hair (another Kerry trait).

I came in a little biased thinking Pawlenty has been saying the right things so far, and I generally like him and what he did in MN (even before the debate, one of my favorite candidates). I think he is still saying the right things and isn't stirring the pot, yet. Overall, he was a non-entity, he didn't say anything memorable either way - and that's a good thing at this stage. There's still a year of primaries, do you want folks to be tired of talking about you next march? He talked a bit about his experience which I think is going to be importaint to go against an incumbant President. While I don't think he 'won' the debate, I think his performance and poise keep him stationed as a legit candidate.

Santorum kept a pretty neutral image like Pawlenty, but I don't think this debate showed any of the negatives of Santorum. Not that it ever really came out during this debate, but I feel his legislative history is too agressively socially conservative for the Tea Party-marbled Republican party. For this debate specifically, he's probably somewhere in the middle of the pack because of his poise in giving party-line answers.

Bachmann is going to have the same problem as Palin during the election, and thus is un-nominatable by the GOP, she's too honest. She did very good at articulating some of the budget issues, and in a debate setting that's great, but in the long run that honesty is going to kill her. I think the stark reasonable answers get her a 2nd place at the debate in my mind (or maybe first if I discount Ron Paul as a sheep in a tie-dye shirt). She spoke the most clearly and gave the most 'sane' opinons of the group.

[WhoWee]

When Romney said "everyone on this stage would make a better President than Barack Obama" - he revealed the base Republican strategy of the 2012 cycle. There's no reason for the candidates to shred each other. The subtle differences will emerge and the debates will help form a final package - positioned to defeat the President. Again IMO - marketing 101.

[Proton Soup]

Who did you like? (and notice I used two words in my title since "one word titles may be deleted" :rofl:)

Pawlenty, Bachman, Santorum, and Romney performed well, regardless of whether I agreed with them or not.

didn't see a lot of it, but was surprised to see Romney in better form than ever


Cain gave me absolutely no reason to take him seriously and Paul appeared as out of touch as ever.

Gingrich gave the most bizarre answer when following up Cain's comments about having Muslims on his staff. Gingrich seemed to feel the Joe McCarthy era was a good thing, which is something you don't hear very often.

but did you read it that way before David Gergen gave his spin on it? i'm guessing not. because he really didn't say what Gergen said.


And one of Romney's answers sounded very strange. He was saying the bailout of car industries was a bad thing and that going through bankruptcy was a better solution, then summed up his argument by saying instead of government getting involved, Obama should have let the car companies solve their own problems the American way. The American way as in declaring bankruptcy? Is that the new version of the American dream? (I know he didn't mean it that way, but it was a strange way to sum up his argument.)


i think the American Way here is to simply use the legal structure that is already in place. we already have rule of law and courts to take care of these situations in an orderly way. getting politicians involved is actually a way of subverting due process and choosing winners and losers by fiat.


Being unknown seemed to be an asset. Bachman seemed poised and reasonably sane, which was a shock to me. Santorum and Pawlenty made good overall impressions. While Romney did well, it was just hard to shake the image he built in 2008 - an image of being even shallower and possessing less character than even Bill Clinton.

Given that I won't vote for Bachman or Santorum, I think Pawlenty came out impressing me the most.

i thought Bachmann was terrible. she can speak in complete sentences, but the depth of her argument about Libya was that Obama was ceding authority to the French. that was an appeal to the lowest common denominator, and i can no longer see her as anything but a knuckle-dragger. the reality is that it isn't really our war to fight, nor our national interests, but europe's. the fact we only played a supportive role instead of doing it all for them is a good thing.

[WhoWee]

i thought Bachmann was terrible. she can speak in complete sentences, but the depth of her argument about Libya was that Obama was ceding authority to the French. that was an appeal to the lowest common denominator, and i can no longer see her as anything but a knuckle-dragger. the reality is that it isn't really our war to fight, nor our national interests, but europe's. the fact we only played a supportive role instead of doing it all for them is a good thing.

Isn't her point valid in the context of the cost to, and involvement of, the US?

[Proton Soup]

Isn't her point valid in the context of the cost to, and involvement of, the US?

no. do you really want to own it and be there for the next decade?

[WhoWee]

no. do you really want to own it and be there for the next decade?

Of course not - but do you think the French (or any other NATO member) cares how much this costs the US?

[BobG]

but did you read it that way before David Gergen gave his spin on it? i'm guessing not. because he really didn't say what Gergen said.



Yes, I did. Actually, I was surprised it took so long for someone to comment on it.

What Gingrich said, along with the discussion that led up to his comments to provide some context. It may not have been totally clear what Gingrich meant by "we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists", but Joe McCarthy's Red Scare and loyalty oaths were the first thing that popped into my mind from Gingrich's comments.

(And this was one of Romney's better moments, as he resisted the chance to pander to the Muslim fearing fringe elements.)


MCELVEEN: Thank you.

While we're on the topic of faith and religion, the next question goes to Mr. Cain. You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of back off that a little bit and said you would first want to know if they're committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, "a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country."

Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?

CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn't appoint one. That's the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn't be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey -- there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have -- my term, not his -- a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn't ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let's make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their -- you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization --

KING: When I asked -- I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn't you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew? CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it's not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.

KING: Should one segment, Governor -- I mean, one segment of Americans, in this case, religion, but in any case, should one segment be singled out and treated differently?

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law.

No, I think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country. Our nation was founded on a principal of religious tolerance. That's in fact why some of the early patriots came to this country and we treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion.

Obviously, anybody who would come into my administration would be someone who I knew, who I was comfortable with, and who I believed would honor as their highest oath -- their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

KING: Mr. Speaker, go ahead.

GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed -- when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, "You're my enemy. I lied."

Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: We did this -- we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.

[Ivan Seeking]

This comment from Pawlenty about had me throwing rocks at the tv.

Well, the protections between the separation of church and state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith.
http://sotimpawlenty.com/celebritynews/religion-references-new-hampshire-republican-debate

Thank God I have the Constitution to protect me from people like Pawlenty.

Imo, Romney had the best night. By far he looked and sounded the most presidential of them all. However, the notion that this won't be reduced to a dog fight is nothing but wishful thinking. It is normal for people to hold back and show some unity while its this early in the game.

I have to admit, the term "Obamney Care" was pretty clever.

[BobG]

i thought Bachmann was terrible. she can speak in complete sentences, but the depth of her argument about Libya was that Obama was ceding authority to the French. that was an appeal to the lowest common denominator, and i can no longer see her as anything but a knuckle-dragger. the reality is that it isn't really our war to fight, nor our national interests, but europe's. the fact we only played a supportive role instead of doing it all for them is a good thing.

Well, your criticisms of her have to more to do with substance than presentation. She may be appealing to the lowest common denominator, but I already knew that before the debate.

The worrying thing is that she did it very well. I consider her a much more serious threat than I did before the debate. Before the debate, I considered her to be a loon on the fringe, more a circus act than a serious candidate. After the debate, I think you're looking at the best chance Tea Party/social conservative candidate and that she'll go into Iowa, a state she's lived in, with a good chance to push right into the mix for the Republican nomination.

I can see her now, celebrating an Iowa win with all 23 of her foster kids on the stage with her.

[WhoWee]

Well, your criticisms of her have to more to do with substance than presentation. She may be appealing to the lowest common denominator, but I already knew that before the debate.

The worrying thing is that she did it very well. I consider her a much more serious threat than I did before the debate. Before the debate, I considered her to be a loon on the fringe, more a circus act than a serious candidate. After the debate, I think you're looking at the best chance Tea Party/social conservative candidate and that she'll go into Iowa, a state she's lived in, with a good chance to push right into the mix for the Republican nomination.

I can see her now, celebrating an Iowa win with all 23 of her foster kids on the stage with her.

By "lowest common denominator" are either of you referencing the average American tax payer?

[Proton Soup]

Of course not - but do you think the French (or any other NATO member) cares how much this costs the US?

actually, was reading something recently where this war was really driving home just how unprepared, and unable, some of these countries are to fight a war. because they simply don't have the equipment to do it anymore. that makes me very happy that we were dragging our feet in the beginning. europe will either have to fund development of their own war machine, or depend on us for even small regional wars. i wonder if business taxes would continue to be so low there?

Yes, I did. Actually, I was surprised it took so long for someone to comment on it.

What Gingrich said, along with the discussion that led up to his comments to provide some context. It may not have been totally clear what Gingrich meant by "we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists", but Joe McCarthy's Red Scare and loyalty oaths were the first thing that popped into my mind from Gingrich's comments.

(And this was one of Romney's better moments, as he resisted the chance to pander to the Muslim fearing fringe elements.)

fringe is a good point. this is nothing at all like the Nazis or Communists, is it? compared to them, the muslim lunatic fringe is a mere nuisance.

[WhoWee]

fringe is a good point. this is nothing at all like the Nazis or Communists, is it? compared to them, the muslim lunatic fringe is a mere nuisance.

When Iran creates an inventory of nuclear warheads - won't they be more powerful than Nazi Germany?

[Ivan Seeking]

When Iran creates an inventory of nuclear warheads - won't they be more powerful than Nazi Germany?

Perhaps in terms of destructive capacity but not in terms of destructive capabilities. Unlike Hitler, Iran's leadership knows we could turn their country into a glass parking lot in an hour. Even in a worst case for us, MAD still applies. We didn't have this to counter threats before WWII.

[Office_Shredder]

When Iran creates an inventory of nuclear warheads - won't they be more powerful than Nazi Germany?

Germany had a puncher's chance of taking over the whole world... do you really think Iran will be able to do that? Power has to be considered relative, not absolute

[aquitaine]

Not that I'm a Republican or anything but I think Romney got it right on that, it isn't about the particular form of superstitious nonsense they chose it is the way of thinking that counts. Backwardness like Sharia has no place in America.

[WhoWee]

Perhaps in terms of destructive capacity but not in terms of destructive capabilities. Unlike Hitler, Iran's leadership knows we could turn their country into a glass parking lot in an hour. Even in a worst case for us, MAD still applies. We didn't have this to counter threats before WWII.

How many Muslims would be enraged world wide if Iran was turned into a "glass parking lot in an hour"?

[Ivan Seeking]

How many Muslims would be enraged world wide if Iran was turned into a "glass parking lot in an hour"?

If we are ever forced to engage in a nuclear war, do you really think we will care? When push comes to shove, we are still the biggest kid on the block. Our power is only artificially limited in conventional warfare.

[WhoWee]

If we are ever forced to engage in a nuclear war, do you really think we will care? When push comes to shove, we are still the biggest kid on the block. Our power is only artificially limited in conventional warfare.

That is a great question Ivan. I think it depends upon the circumstances leading to an engagement. IMO - there are three scenarios whereby we might engage Iran.
1.) They launch an attack directly unto our personnel or a ship.
2.) They launch an attack on Israel.
3.) They take credit for (or can be linked without question to) a nuclear terrorist attack in the US.

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know what would push us over the edge but I would expect that we would only use nukes as a response to a nuclear attack, or perhaps to a biological or chemical attack of sufficient consequence.

However, if that line is ever crossed, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of US retribution. Once the lid comes off I think it will be all but impossible to contain the situation. We in the US have all lived with the threat of mutually assured destruction with the Soviets, and more recently with the Chinese, for decades. The minor threat posed from places like Iran are nothing new and pale in comparison to the reality we accepted long ago.

What concerns me the most is that radical muslims understand this. In the end, we are fatalists and incredibly powerful - our policy of MAD shows this. I think many young people abroad fail to understand just how much power we really have; and that we are willing to use it if we must.

[Ryumast3r]

One thing that Yamamoto knew very well, and I think many other people around the world could learn, is that the U.S. is filled with in-fighting, and makes us appear rather weak, however, if you are on the outside looking in, and you piss us (as a country) off enough, we will set aside everything we have and care for to make sure that you have nothing left.

Our policies throughout history, most recently being M.A.D. definitely shows this. The United States has more than enough nuclear weaponry to deal with any one, and a significant amount of our warheads aren't even in our mainland (we have a ton of submarines and other things around the world). We've used them before, and I doubt there's much stopping us from using it again, with the exception of our own internal feelings on the issue.

[BobG]

Not that I'm a Republican or anything but I think Romney got it right on that, it isn't about the particular form of superstitious nonsense they chose it is the way of thinking that counts. Backwardness like Sharia has no place in America.

What Romney said:

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, of course, we're not going to have Sharia law applied in U.S. courts. That's never going to happen. We have a Constitution and we follow the law.


I guess there's more than one way to interpret what he said (which is typical Romney), but I think the point of his comment was that Sharia law was a silly issue to get spun up about because it wasn't a realistic possibility. I don't think he was boasting that he wasn't going to let Sharia law happen in the US.

And Romney is right. You can ask the social conservatives that want to insert Christian law into the courts. (Wait, I don't think Romney wants his comment interpreted that way.)

[Proton Soup]

That is a great question Ivan. I think it depends upon the circumstances leading to an engagement. IMO - there are three scenarios whereby we might engage Iran.
1.) They launch an attack directly unto our personnel or a ship.
2.) They launch an attack on Israel.
3.) They take credit for (or can be linked without question to) a nuclear terrorist attack in the US.

4.) we claim they are harboring terrorists, or financing or supplying terrorists.

[Al68]

This comment from Pawlenty about had me throwing rocks at the tv.Well, the protections between the separation of church and state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith.Why? The first amendment's wording specifically protects religious freedom from government infringement, not the other way around. The other way around doesn't even make any sense in the context of the constitution.

So little sense that I'm at a loss to understand how Pawlenty's comment could even be controversial. What am I missing?

[Ivan Seeking]

Thank God I have the Constitution to protect me from people like Pawlenty.

And Romney is right. You can ask the social conservatives that want to insert Christian law into the courts.

Yes, this Sharia law business is much ado about nothing. It is only a question of ratings, not law.

[Ivan Seeking]

Why? The first amendment's wording specifically protects religious freedom from government infringement, not the other way around. The other way around doesn't even make any sense in the context of the constitution.

So little sense that I'm at a loss to understand how Pawlenty's comment could even be controversial. What am I missing?

You don't think I'm protected from him legally imposing his beliefs on me?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

[Al68]

You don't think I'm protected from him legally imposing his beliefs on me?Huh? Why would you ask that when I clearly just said the exact opposite, in the post you just responded to? :confused:

That's what "protects religious freedom from government infringement" means. :confused:

And my original question still remains: Why throw rocks at Pawlenty for saying essentially the same thing? Did you misinterpret his statement as you did mine?

[mege]

You don't think I'm protected from him legally imposing his beliefs on me?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

So lying, stealing and murder should be legal in the US just because they're part of the Judeo-Christian belief system via the Ten Commandments? Of course not.

"Imposing beliefs" is something I have a hard time buying because there's secular reasons for nearly any popularly percieved 'Christian belief'. Discounting something religious just for the sake of it being religious is just as rediculous as following a religious principle for the sake of it being religious in my mind. It's not like any serious politician or candidate is trying to mandate that everyone goes to church or prays 3 times a day. I firmly believe that the religiously fueled 'moral debates' we have in this country (like like abortion and gay marriage) aren't solely 'religion vs non-religion' - because if they were that simple, they would have been solved easilly a long time ago. While many Christians are quick to quote the bible in regards to these issues, what's the reasoning behind what's in the bible? Why can't these ideas be seperated from the religious implications? Prima facia rejection (or support) doesn't lead to any level of enlightenment on the issue, and in my opinion that's the biggest problem with our politics today.

I think Senator Santorum put it very eloquently:

I'm someone who believes that you approach issues using faith and reason. And if your faith is pure and your reason is right, they'll end up in the same place.

I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country -- Madison called it the perfect remedy -- which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you're not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite -- we get along because we know that we -- all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That's what makes America work.

[aquitaine]

Perhaps in terms of destructive capacity but not in terms of destructive capabilities. Unlike Hitler, Iran's leadership knows we could turn their country into a glass parking lot in an hour. Even in a worst case for us, MAD still applies. We didn't have this to counter threats before WWII.

We should also consider that germany at that time was the most technologically advanced nation, with loads of nobel prize winners and inventions to back up, plus they also had the third largest industrial output in the world, behind only american and the soviet union which were considerably larger, and that is ultimately why they were such a huge threat. Iran is none of these.


How many Muslims would be enraged world wide if Iran was turned into a "glass parking lot in an hour"?


We've also got enough nukes in stockpile to flatten the rest of the mideast as well, plus the secret massively illegal stockpile israel has. There's plenty of mass death and destruction to go around if they're lining up.


I guess there's more than one way to interpret what he said (which is typical Romney), but I think the point of his comment was that Sharia law was a silly issue to get spun up about because it wasn't a realistic possibility. I don't think he was boasting that he wasn't going to let Sharia law happen in the US.

And Romney is right. You can ask the social conservatives that want to insert Christian law into the courts. (Wait, I don't think Romney wants his comment interpreted that way.)

Good point. People are getting wound up in Sharia because they have had so much success in the UK and to a much lesser extent the Netherlands. It's truely been stunning what they have been allowed to get away with. Unfortunately for them they don't have an establishment clause but still, things like this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html) and this (http://bigpeace.com/dwest/2011/04/25/michigan-court-establishes-blasphemy-free-zone-for-islam/) seriously make you wonder.

[BobG]

Good point. People are getting wound up in Sharia because they have had so much success in the UK and to a much lesser extent the Netherlands. It's truely been stunning what they have been allowed to get away with. Unfortunately for them they don't have an establishment clause but still, things like this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html) and this (http://bigpeace.com/dwest/2011/04/25/michigan-court-establishes-blasphemy-free-zone-for-islam/) seriously make you wonder.

The second story is similar to stories about the Westboro Baptist Church protesting military funerals. It's also similar to stories about anti-abortion protestors being forced to keep their protests a certain distance away from abortion clinics. Having First Amendment rights to voice your opinion doesn't give you the right to disrupt other people's actions, which is what Terry Jones was attempting to do.

Edit: In other words, as far as the court was concerned, the fact that a mosque was involved was coincidental. They treated the situation the same way they usually do.

(I hate it when people give supporting examples and no argument or ask leading questions and pretend the reader will actually have a clue what they're trying to say and I especially hate it when I forget to include my argument with my post.)

[WhoWee]

4.) we claim they are harboring terrorists, or financing or supplying terrorists.

Actually (as per this discussion) number 4 falls under the nuisance category - doesn't it?

[NeoDevin]

It's not like any serious politician or candidate is trying to mandate that everyone goes to church or prays 3 times a day.

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.

Why can't these ideas be seperated from the religious implications?

Because the only reasons most opponents of these ideas have for opposing them are religious. The vast majority of opponents of both abortion and gay marriage base their opposition solely on religious grounds, without ever even considering possible secular reasons.

[aquitaine]

The second story is similar to stories about the Westboro Baptist Church protesting military funerals. It's also similar to stories about anti-abortion protestors being forced to keep their protests a certain distance away from abortion clinics. Having First Amendment rights to voice your opinion doesn't give you the right to disrupt other people's actions, which is what Terry Jones was attempting to do.

Edit: In other words, as far as the court was concerned, the fact that a mosque was involved was coincidental. They treated the situation the same way they usually do.

(I hate it when people give supporting examples and no argument or ask leading questions and pretend the reader will actually have a clue what they're trying to say and I especially hate it when I forget to include my argument with my post.)

Protesters have to keep a certain distance back from abortion clinics because of assasinations of doctors and bombings of clinics, hardly a comparable situation. Plus I don't recall those protesters getting arrested. Had the religions been reversed this never would have happened, there is a very real danger in giving one group more leeway than another. Personally I'm an atheist so I don't have a stake in it either way, but I do recognize favortism and potential threat they could pose if left unchecked, the UK is a good example of that. As though the christian fanatics weren't bad enough.........

[Proton Soup]

Actually (as per this discussion) number 4 falls under the nuisance category - doesn't it?

nuisance category? i'm not sure what you're saying. but my point is that iran doesn't have to do anything for the USG to decide to start a war with them.

consider afghanistan. http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/gates-says-afghanistan-is-not-war-without-end-1542416.html?printArticle=y

what do you need to justify staying there? al qaeda. can we ever get them all, or will they just recruit more the longer we stay at war? i can't imagine we ever can get them all, and even if we did, someone else would take their place. it seems an impossible goal to me, but it's a goal for which it is easy to gain public support.

[WhoWee]

nuisance category? i'm not sure what you're saying. but my point is that iran doesn't have to do anything for the USG to decide to start a war with them.


Sorry - your post number 12:

"fringe is a good point. this is nothing at all like the Nazis or Communists, is it? compared to them, the muslim lunatic fringe is a mere nuisance."

[WhoWee]

what do you need to justify staying there? al qaeda. can we ever get them all, or will they just recruit more the longer we stay at war? i can't imagine we ever can get them all, and even if we did, someone else would take their place. it seems an impossible goal to me, but it's a goal for which it is easy to gain public support.

I've posted this in other threads - IMO - this conflict with Muslim radicals will never end - regardless of who we elect or what we say or do (other than converting and prescribing perhaps?).

[Ryumast3r]

I've posted this in other threads - IMO - this conflict with Muslim radicals will never end - regardless of who we elect or what we say or do (other than converting and prescribing perhaps?).


There will always be radicals. The most we can do is educate, liberate, etc, to make sure that people aren't basically bribed into subscribing into the ideology because they are poor and starving.

[Proton Soup]

Sorry - your post number 12:

"fringe is a good point. this is nothing at all like the Nazis or Communists, is it? compared to them, the muslim lunatic fringe is a mere nuisance."

i don't understand your point. what does this have to do with justifying a war with iran ?

I've posted this in other threads - IMO - this conflict with Muslim radicals will never end - regardless of who we elect or what we say or do (other than converting and prescribing perhaps?).

is that so ? have you ever paid attention to what al qaeda actually says ? from the post used to claim that al qaeda has "confirmed" bin laden's death:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-06/world/bin.laden.qaeda.comment_1_site-intelligence-group-bin-laden-al-qaeda?_s=PM:WORLD

It said that Americans "will never enjoy security until our people in Palestine enjoy it."

if american security is important, then why don't we just put boots on the ground in palestine? since we demand that the palestinians remain defenseless, then why not just send in american soldiers to enforce the borders and protect palestinians?

[WhoWee]

i don't understand your point. what does this have to do with justifying a war with iran ?

I had responded to a post discussing the US capability of turning Iran into a glass parking lot. My listing was an opinion of the (nuclear) actions by Iran that could lead to a (nuclear) response by the US.

[Proton Soup]

I had responded to a post discussing the US capability of turning Iran into a glass parking lot. My listing was an opinion of the (nuclear) actions by Iran that could lead to a (nuclear) response by the US.

your first option implies a nuclear attack by iran?

That is a great question Ivan. I think it depends upon the circumstances leading to an engagement. IMO - there are three scenarios whereby we might engage Iran.
1.) They launch an attack directly unto our personnel or a ship.

i had no idea you were trying to limit the discussion to only a nuclear engagement. ivan even mentioned conventional warfare in the post you responded to. but the nuke rhetoric will certainly be there in infotainment sphere, just as it was with iraq.

[BobG]

Protesters have to keep a certain distance back from abortion clinics because of assasinations of doctors and bombings of clinics, hardly a comparable situation. Plus I don't recall those protesters getting arrested. Had the religions been reversed this never would have happened, there is a very real danger in giving one group more leeway than another. Personally I'm an atheist so I don't have a stake in it either way, but I do recognize favortism and potential threat they could pose if left unchecked, the UK is a good example of that. As though the christian fanatics weren't bad enough.........

Anti-abortion violence is a concurrent problem that exists along side anti-abortion protests. I could imagine the violence helped create extra support for laws restricting protests, but those laws have to stand on their own in court. You can't restrict the rights of one group because of the criminal acts of an unrelated group just because both groups are motivated by similar ideals. (Besides, while laws vary by locale, most restrictions on protestors don't push them far enough back to prevent shootings or bombings.)

I think that the situation of Muslims in Europe might possibly have some relevance to the US, but not necessarily to Muslims in the US. There's a higher percentage of Muslims in Europe than the US (less than 1% in the US, and from 2.7% in the UK to 6% in France) and their incomes are significantly less than the overall average incomes in Europe. Muslims in the US have incomes comparable to the overall average income. The situation in Europe would be more similar to the situation of Hispanics and Blacks in the US. Both make up a large segment of US population and both have average incomes significantly below the average income of the general population. I don't think the religion of the minority group is most significant factor.

[mege]

Because the only reasons most opponents of these ideas have for opposing them are religious. The vast majority of opponents of both abortion and gay marriage base their opposition solely on religious grounds, without ever even considering possible secular reasons.

BTW that Bush 'quote' from most sources, was actually from President Bush 41 when he was VP in 1987 - but I can't find any original documentation for it except from liberal blogs and a few different supposed 'copies' of transcripts. Never mind the potential slander, he probably did feel that way, BUT why does every policy need to get the Atheist seal of approval? Isn't that a religion/belief system in it's own right? It's no secret that neither of the President Bush 41 or 43 were popular with Atheists, but that still doesn't answer why anything with religious connotations should be rejected at face value like many claim (see my Ten Commandments statement from earlier).

With the abortion debate - just because a candidate says 'God thinks every life is sacred' means that we need to discount the fact that we hold life to a high standard? That's a binary application of principle without actually weighing the entire statement. Replace 'God' in the statement and it's instantly 'better' in your mind? To me, that's just as wrong as blindly following and attempting to apply policy based religious principles. I also feel that much of the secular message gets ignored because of the religious connotations associated with any position. Candidates would be commiting political suicide if they actually based all of their decisions, and campaigned on them, based on religious motivations. You may only hear the 'God told me so' message from the media, but listen to the whole speeches and you have a wider range of secular arguements from most candidates in addition to the religious arguement. Too bad the media just emphasises the religious message.

[NeoDevin]

BTW that Bush 'quote' from most sources, was actually from President Bush 41 when he was VP in 1987

Whichever Bush it was, my point remains that there are politicians who don't think people outside their religion should be considered citizens. It's not quite "mandating that everyone goes to church or prays 3 times a day", but it does show that there are "serious politicians" who would be willing to force their religion on the people.

Never mind the potential slander, he probably did feel that way, BUT why does every policy need to get the Atheist seal of approval?

A policy doesn't need to have a Atheist seal of approval, but it must have a secular purpose. Further, it's primary purpose must be secular. Meaning a secular benefit can't simply be the by-product of a policy primarily intended to promote religion.

It's no secret that neither of the President Bush 41 or 43 were popular with Atheists, but that still doesn't answer why anything with religious connotations should be rejected at face value like many claim (see my Ten Commandments statement from earlier).

So lying, stealing and murder should be legal in the US just because they're part of the Judeo-Christian belief system via the Ten Commandments? Of course not.

The point is not that they should be legal because they're part of Judeo-Christianity, but that they shouldn't be illegal because they are part of Judeo-Christianity (that is, the reasoning for making them illegal shouldn't be because of religion, it should be because of secular benefit). Surely you wouldn't propose that the second commandment (no other god) become law in the US? There would be no secular benefit to that, only promotion of religion.

That's a binary application of principle without actually weighing the entire statement. Replace 'God' in the statement and it's instantly 'better' in your mind?

If you replace "God" with some sort of secular reasoning, then yes. (I'm going to leave off the specifics of the abortion debate, since that has been covered ad nauseum in other threads, and will come to no productive end here either)

I also feel that much of the secular message gets ignored because of the religious connotations associated with any position.

If that is the case (and you haven't convinced me that it is), then it is more likely ignored by the religious proponents in emphasizing their religious motivations.

Candidates would be commiting political suicide if they actually based all of their decisions, and campaigned on them, based on religious motivations.

That would depend which state they are running in. In some states, it seems that the winner of any office is the one who reads the loudest from their Bible.

You may only hear the 'God told me so' message from the media, but listen to the whole speeches and you have a wider range of secular arguements from most candidates in addition to the religious arguement. Too bad the media just emphasises the religious message.

Remarkably I have listened to whole speeches, and generally the emphasis is on "God told me so", and anything resembling a secular argument is tacked on as an afterthought, if at all. (This is not true of every religious politician, but is for many of them)

While I agree with you that their can be both religious and secular motivations for the same argument, I disagree with you that most religious candidates are actually making the secular arguments. I further suggest that many of them are proposing religiously motivated policies that have very little if any secular benefit.

We're getting pretty far off topic here, want to continue in a new thread?

[Ivan Seeking]

Chris Christie didn't hurt himself any on Meet the Press, this morning. I don't know a lot about his politics yet but I was impressed with him as a person.

Of course he's not running, and he even disqualifies himself as being "not vice-presidential material".

[WhoWee]

Chris Christie didn't hurt himself any on Meet the Press, this morning. I don't know a lot about his politics yet but I was impressed with him as a person.

Of course he's not running, and he even disqualifies himself as being "not vice-presidential material".

I've always been a little suspicious of very fast moving/rising stars - ala then Senator Obama half way through his first term. I personally want to see a 4 to 8 year track record of voting or (in the case of a Governor) an administrative record.

[Ivan Seeking]

I've always been a little suspicious of very fast moving/rising stars - ala then Senator Obama half way through his first term. I personally want to see a 4 to 8 year track record of voting or (in the case of a Governor) an administrative record.

Same here, but if I judge a person to be of low character or unqualified for high office, their record doesn't matter.

For example, there is nothing Palin could ever do to get my vote. In her case it's a fundamental character issue so there is no possible redemption. I've never been fond of Romney but he doesn't offend me, and he does seem to be Presidential material. So it is conceivable that issues could drive a choice there. Ron Paul stands as a voice for classic libertarianism but could and should never be elected to a higher office. Rand Paul is just the wayward bastard child of Ron - too fringe to ever be considered seriously. Bachmann - a wonderful woman no doubt, but like Ron Paul, she's hopelessly fringe. Huntsman looks good on paper but he has no presense and could never gain support from the more extreme elements of the Republican party - esp the tea partiers. From what I know about him so far he sounds like someone I could support in principle. Even so, he appears to be far too boring to ever get nominated, even under the best of circumstances. Pawlenty would seemingly inappropriately drive religion into politics - I took serious issue with one of his comments - and he acted like a coward when he had his chance to assert himself, so he's out for good. His political positions don't matter. Cain? Yeah, right!!! He's more fringe than Bachmann.

As for Gingrich... I like the man personally, and I think his voice is a valuable component in public discourse, but not a chance he could get elected or that I would support him. It's a character issue. Plus, he seems to be getting a little nutty. He has certainly demonstrated a serious inablity to control his message. Given his long experience in public office, there is no excuse for that.

[Ivan Seeking]

Barring any radical disclosures or unpredictable meltdowns, it looks to me like it will be Obama vs Romney in 2012.

Of the field he is really the only viable candidate that I see, and it's getting pretty late in the game for any completely new players to emerge.

[Al68]

Barring any radical disclosures or unpredictable meltdowns, it looks to me like it will be Obama vs Romney in 2012.

Of the field he is really the only viable candidate that I see, and it's getting pretty late in the game for any completely new players to emerge.That seems a very odd thing to say this far out. Especially given the history of unpredictability in primaries.

It's especially seems odd to think that Romney is the only viable candidate. The only reason he even has a chance is the popular belief that he would be most likely to defeat Obama, and how desperate and urgent that goal is to so many Republicans.

[mege]

I don't think the GOP Presidential Candidate has been seen as a front runner yet.

Romney is the political 'proper' candidate, and is moderate enough to snag votes from those that are afraid of the true anti-collectivist folks with media bullseyes on their heads. But, he will be a President Bush 3.0 - appealing to the neo-cons more than anyone.

Still better than the incumbent IMO, but people need to understand what they're getting.

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think the GOP Presidential Candidate has been seen as a front runner yet.

It is pretty late to start from scratch. By now candidates need to be getting the money machine in place.

[Ivan Seeking]

That seems a very odd thing to say this far out. Especially given the history of unpredictability in primaries.

Not for Republicans. You're thinking of the Democrats.

It's especially seems odd to think that Romney is the only viable candidate. The only reason he even has a chance is the popular belief that he would be most likely to defeat Obama, and how desperate and urgent that goal is to so many Republicans.

I see him as the only candidate the Republicans would nominate who isn't a nut. If you want to beat Obama, you will need someone at least as moderate as Romney.

Put Palin or Bachman or Paul in there, or any tea party extremist. Obama would LOVE that.

[Al68]

I see him as the only candidate the Republicans would nominate who isn't a nut. If you want to beat Obama, you will need someone at least as moderate as Romney.

Put Palin or Bachman or Paul in there, or any tea party extremist. Obama would LOVE that.I would agree with that, if you replace "nut" and "tea party extremist" with "depicted as a nut by the media" and "depicted as an extremist by the media".

How candidates are depicted by the media does impact electability, whether the depiction is accurate or not, and must be taken into account, unfortunately.

[BobG]

I don't think the GOP Presidential Candidate has been seen as a front runner yet.



It is pretty late to start from scratch. By now candidates need to be getting the money machine in place.

True. At this point, it's all about raising money. We'll have a front runner about Jul 15 - when candidates announce their second quarter fundraising.

Early hints: Romney raised less than $20 million. Pawlenty, Huntsman, Paul have raised somewhere around $4 million. The other candidates aren't giving out early hints.

I'll be surprised if Romney doesn't have a huge lead in fundraising, even given the vagueness of "less than $20 million".

GOP presidential candidates tally up second-quarter fundraising (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-candidates-tally-up-second-quarter-fundraising/2011/07/01/AGzWHJuH_story.html)

Second quarter fundraising in 2007 for comparison: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2008_United_States_presidentia l_election#2nd_quarter_2007) Five candidates raised over $10 million.

I think the key to the Republican nomination will be getting the endorsement of Sarah Palin (since I'm almost sure she's not running). I think a good strategy would be for one of the candidates to offer to make her Ambassador to Russia. :tongue2: Heck, she could even work from home!

[BobG]

September 7 debate:

Perry entering the race is the best thing that ever happened to Romney - at least debate wise. The fact that Perry is leading Romney in the polls and could actually beat him is problematic. But Romney looks a lot more like a real person than he did back in 2008. I'd still feel like a drunken bimbo to ignore his first Presidential campaign .... but he looked so manly last night!

I still don't know enough about Perry, but my initial impression is that I don't like him. Something about the Texas accent and the occasional 'we done it's' just bother me. At least he didn't back off of things he was already on the record for. They may be damaging, but they were going to be damaging anyway and he didn't want to make the same mistakes Romney consistently made in 2008 - mistakes that just made Romney look like a wimp.

We have too many candidates at these debates. We should get to vote one candidate off at the end of each debate. Gingrich would be a good first choice. He's the only candidate more annoying than Ron Paul. Santorum would be a good second choice. He's a non-entity and just fails to make much impression at all.

I'd keep Huntsman and Cain around a while. Both present themselves well (which is an improvement for Cain from his first debate) and have at least some possibility of being discovered and moving up in the polls because of their debate performances - Huntsman probably moreso than Cain. I could even vote for Huntsman.

Bachmann and Paul did about as expected, but who cared? Romney and Perry kind of stole the show and finally seem to be providing a race that could help Republicans instead of just making all of them look a little smaller.

[WhoWee]

Romney seems to be in control - slow and steady - in spite of attacks by Perry - IMO.

I want to put this into print - to see how it looks:

Romney - Gingrich 2012

Truth be told - I just want to see Newt debate Biden.

[BobG]

Some candidates just don't handle debates well.

Rick Perry:
I think Americans just don't know sometimes which Mitt Romney they're dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it—was before he was before the social programs, from the standpoint of he was for standing up for Roe v. Wade before he was against Roe v. Wade? He was for Race to the Top, he's for Obamacare, and now he's against it. I mean, we'll wait until tomorrow and—and—and see which Mitt Romney we're really talking to tonight.

That's not quite Palinesque, since Palin's problem is she can't tolerate seconds of silence while she thinks about the question. Instead, she tosses out a string of mindless fragments until she finds a fragment that might get a little traction.

Perry knew what he wanted to say, but his words gave you the Fourier transform of his message instead of the time domain version of his message. That can happen to anyone that speaks a lot, whether a prestigious candidate or just a lowly teacher.

Still, the brightest points for Perry, so far, have been the attacks from Bachmann and Santorum. They have a knack for making sure everyone knows Perry isn't really a bonafide Tea Party wacko.

He just isn't good enough in debates to make a good case for himself.

[lisab]

Some candidates just don't handle debates well.

Rick Perry:


That's not quite Palinesque, since Palin's problem is she can't tolerate seconds of silence while she thinks about the question. Instead, she tosses out a string of mindless fragments until she finds a fragment that might get a little traction.

Perry knew what he wanted to say, but his words gave you the Fourier transform of his message instead of the time domain version of his message. That can happen to anyone that speaks a lot, whether a prestigious candidate or just a lowly teacher.

Still, the brightest points for Perry, so far, have been the attacks from Bachmann and Santorum. They have a knack for making sure everyone knows Perry isn't really a bonafide Tea Party wacko.

He just isn't good enough in debates to make a good case for himself.

:rofl:

[mheslep]

...

He just isn't good enough in debates to make a good case for himself.Apparently he had the ability to destroy the able K. B. Hutchinson in the Governor's primary race, but he's not showing much debate strength here so far.

[mheslep]

Romney seems to be in control - slow and steady - in spite of attacks by Perry - IMO.

I want to put this into print - to see how it looks:

Romney - Gingrich 2012

Truth be told - I just want to see Newt debate Biden.That's only possible if Senator Rubio declines, as he's the first choice. I guy who could deliver Florida's ~27 electoral votes and who many would already like to see as a ~2016 President is impossible to pass up. I doubt Gingrich can deliver a state that's in play, plus a Gingrich is not needed to beat Biden in VP debates.

[WhoWee]

That's only possible if Senator Rubio declines, as he's the first choice. I guy who could deliver Florida's ~27 electoral votes and who many would already like to see as a ~2016 President is impossible to pass up. I doubt Gingrich can deliver a state that's in play, plus a Gingrich is not needed to beat Biden in VP debates.

Personally, I think it's too soon to tap Rubio - or any first term legislator (one of the major problems with Obama). This is the same reason I don't want to see Chris Christie or Nikki Haley in the mix. They all need to establish track records.

I would like to see some polls of Gingrich versus Rubio. Gingrich has the requisite experience on the Hill to fix a lot of problems - Rubio may face bi-partisan resentment and add negative value. I think Newt is the ideal Vice President candidate - he would "complete" any of the front-runners and help restore confidence.

[mheslep]

Personally, I think it's too soon to tap Rubio - or any first term legislator (one of the major problems with Obama). This is the same reason I don't want to see Chris Christie or Nikki Haley in the mix. They all need to establish track records.

I would like to see some polls of Gingrich versus Rubio. Gingrich has the requisite experience on the Hill to fix a lot of problems - Rubio may face bi-partisan resentment and add negative value. I think Newt is the ideal Vice President candidate - he would "complete" any of the front-runners and help restore confidence.The first task of the VP candidate is to help the head of the ticket win. Deliver votes. Smart as he his, do you really think Newt, with all of his Tiffany purchases and marriages, does that better than Marco?

[WhoWee]

The first task of the VP candidate is to help the head of the ticket win. Deliver votes. Smart as he his, do you really think Newt, with all of his Tiffany purchases and marriages, does that better than Marco?

Again, I'd like to see a poll.

I think Rubio is perceived as the Latin Eric Cantor by the general population and a token choice by others. Newt probably has the strongest name recognition in the field and a proven track record in Congress.

If the presentation is - here's Romney, a moderate with strong business experience and a track record as Governor to point and over here his partner former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, creative, experienced, intelligent, balanced, and able to keep Mitt out of trouble in Washington - it's a strong ticket. If the Left wants to attack him for spending too much on jewelry - the President will face similar scrutiny for the First Lady's pattern of travel on separate jets at minimum. Newt wasn't spending taxpayer funds.

[BobG]

A Vice President candidate might bring in one state. The main job of VP candidates is not to be a disaster - not to be a Palin or an Eagleton.

Gingrich would be exactly the type of VP candidate you'd want to avoid. While Biden may say silly things fairly often (and even get some dirty looks from the President during extra swearing in ceremonies), he has an easy personality to like. Gingrich has an easy personality to hate.

[mheslep]

... and able to keep Mitt out of trouble in Washington - it's a strong ticket. Newt has ample experience, but that is not the same thing as knowing how to stay out of trouble. How do you get credit Newt as able to help there given his ethics sanction, that he was more or less forced to resign by his own as Speaker, and nearly single-handedly blew up his own current campaign with the "“right-wing social engineering" comment.

[WhoWee]

Newt has ample experience, but that is not the same thing as knowing how to stay out of trouble. How do you get credit Newt as able to help there given his ethics sanction, that he was more or less forced to resign by his own as Speaker, and nearly single-handedly blew up his own current campaign with the "“right-wing social engineering" comment.

I think it's safe to assume he's learned from life experiences. There are 2 issues on the table; 1.) getting elected, and 2.) governing.

The current President's experience as a community organizer, and the strategy of equating McCain with Bush, enabled him to get elected, but his absolute lack of management experience has forced him to rely on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to drive legislation (a success from their perspective). However, President Obama has failed to deliver on his specific promises to fix the economy, close Gitmo, etc.

While Newt might not deliver as many votes as Rubio among Hispanics and strict Conservatives, I think we'll pull center and left voters that Rubio might not draw. As for Governing, Newt is by far the strongest person on the stage - and the most knowledgeable - IMO. I'll concede he's not electable as the President - but Vice President is another story.

[mheslep]

I think it's safe to assume he's learned from life experiences. ...Well he may very well have, but safe to assume? Many people never do.

I don't think the strength of a VP candidate Newt would be in keeping a former governor and business exec out of trouble; he would provide other strengths. Given he'd be free of ever running for office again (~too old in 2020), he could sharply contrast his ticket's issues with the opposition's, allowing the presidential candidate to remain presidential.

[WhoWee]

Well he may very well have, but safe to assume? Many people never do.

I don't think the strength of a VP candidate Newt would be in keeping a former governor and business exec out of trouble; he would provide other strengths. Given he'd be free of ever running for office again (~too old in 2020), he could sharply contrast his ticket's issues with the opposition's, allowing the presidential candidate to remain presidential.

When I commented about keeping out of trouble, I meant politically/strategically on the Hill and with regards to foreign policy more than in a Clinton/scandal way. As you've pointed out, Newt is at the end of his political life. I think he would be very determined to make things happen - whereas a Rubio MIGHT be more concerned about his (own) future in politics.

[skippy1729]

So what is going on with the Florida straw poll? On the face of it, I was (very) pleasantly (very) suprised by Cain's victory; but also (very) puzzled. His performance at the debate (where he got about half the face time of Romney or Perry) was good but nothing spectacular. In view of the performance of Perry and Bachman it seems fair to say he got over 60% of the Tea Party vote. Perhaps they are figuring out that Bachman is unelectable and Perry is not what they hoped for.

Any other ideas?

Skippy

PS I hope he can use this victory to raise some cash and turn this race around.

[mheslep]

So what is going on with the Florida straw poll? On the face of it, I was (very) pleasantly (very) suprised by Cain's victory; but also (very) puzzled. His performance at the debate (where he got about half the face time of Romney or Perry) was good but nothing spectacular. In view of the performance of Perry and Bachman it seems fair to say he got over 60% of the Tea Party vote. Perhaps they are figuring out that Bachman is unelectable and Perry is not what they hoped for...Yes he's been competent in the debates and he is a self-made man, an authentic rags to riches story. If he had held elected office, any office, I think he'd be leading the field now in popular polls as well as that Florida straw poll. If he somehow manages to raise his game and earn the nomination I think he'd destroy Obama/Biden, carrying even some heavily blue states.

[WhoWee]

Yes he's been competent in the debates and he is a self-made man, an authentic rags to riches story. If he had held elected office, any office, I think he'd be leading the field now in popular polls as well as that Florida straw poll. If he somehow manages to raise his game and earn the nomination I think he'd destroy Obama/Biden, carrying even some heavily blue states.

Cain made a few mistakes in the early debate regarding foreign policy. However, I think people are receptive to his honesty regarding the matter. He didn't try to spin his behavior and instead went to work learning more about the subject. He's another candidate that would be enhanced/completed by an elder statesman running mate.:wink:

[DoggerDan]

Cain made a few mistakes in the early debate regarding foreign policy. However, I think people are receptive to his honesty regarding the matter. He didn't try to spin his behavior and instead went to work learning more about the subject. He's another candidate that would be enhanced/completed by an elder statesman running mate.:wink:

He's got my attention. I appreciate his straightforwardness and matter-of-fact way of looking at the issues.

[DoggerDan]

If he had held elected office, any office, I think he'd be leading the field now in popular polls as well as that Florida straw poll.

Given the sad state of affairs in American politics, that's probably to his advantage, particularly if he's elected.

[BobG]

Some candidates just don't handle debates well.

Rick Perry:


He just isn't good enough in debates to make a good case for himself.

Apparently he had the ability to destroy the able K. B. Hutchinson in the Governor's primary race, but he's not showing much debate strength here so far.

While he's definitely not helping himself in the debates, his performances apparently aren't bad enough to destroy his campaign. He still leads in the polls, but his margin has decreased from 12 points to 7 points.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12rep.htm

Gingrich is definitely on the upswing and Cain's ratings have even improved. Apparently, people have given up on the 'hope' that Palin will run and Paul supporters are begginning to admit he isn't really a viable candidate.

[Jimmy Snyder]

Bachmann blames Arab Spring on Obama's 'weakness'
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44726590/ns/politics-decision_2012/)
I suppose Bachmann is no longer a serious contender so this doesn't matter much any more. I have always advised policitions you can't do yourself harm by saying bad things about foreigners and you can't help yourself by saying good things about them. Bachmann understands this. Most Americans hear the words blame and Arab in the same sentence and count it wisdom.

[mheslep]

While he's definitely not helping himself in the debates, his performances apparently aren't bad enough to destroy his campaign. He still leads in the polls, but his margin has decreased from 12 points to 7 points.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12rep.htm
This week down by four. Cain into third place.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12rep.htm

[Borg]

This week down by four. Cain into third place.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12rep.htm
I read that list too fast. For a moment, I thought that Freddie Kruger was in the running. Not that it would be too surprising this year.

[mheslep]

I would like to see former Gov. Gary Johnson higher on the list. He seems to have the best performance record in office, both in terms of economic results and for doing what he said he would do.

“My next-door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration,” he shot back.

Any residents of NM, then or since, care to comment? The man was twice elected Governor in a blue state and produced an excellent record. Why does a back bench congress woman like Bachman take a higher rank in the polls? I want a recount.

According to one New Mexico paper, "Johnson left the state fiscally solid," and was "arguably the most popular governor of the decade . . . leaving the state with a $1 billion budget surplus." The Washington Times has reported that when Johnson left office, "the size of state government had been substantially reduced and New Mexico was enjoying a large budget surplus."

Johnson positions
Fiscal:

End excessive spending, bloated stimulus programs, unnecessary farm subsidies, and earmarks.
Reassess the role of the federal government and identify responsibilities that can be met more efficiently by the private sector.
Recognize that you can't have limited government at home, but big government abroad.


Foreign policy:

With Osama bin Laden now killed and after 10 years of fighting, U.S. forces should leave Afghanistan's challenges to the Afghan people.
Saddam Hussein has been out of power in Iraq for nearly eight years. America must leave so Iraq can have a chance to grow into a responsible member of the world community.
Without a clear goal for our military actions in Libya, fighting rages on, and the American people are footing the bill.
Decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, American troops remain scattered throughout Europe. It is time to reevaluate these deployments.


Immigration:

Simplify legal immigration
Tackle illegal immigration


Works for me.

[Char. Limit]

Bachmann blames Arab Spring on Obama's 'weakness'
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44726590/ns/politics-decision_2012/)
I suppose Bachmann is no longer a serious contender so this doesn't matter much any more. I have always advised policitions you can't do yourself harm by saying bad things about foreigners and you can't help yourself by saying good things about them. Bachmann understands this. Most Americans hear the words blame and Arab in the same sentence and count it wisdom.

Sad, isn't it?

[Ivan Seeking]

With all of the talk about Chris Cristie I was wondering if he may reconsider. He was just on Piers Morgan who asked if he was 100% certain that he won't run in 2012. Cristie stated clearly that he is 100% certain that he won't run. That was just after saying that he is brutally honest. So that seems to make it final.

So far, I really like Cristie. I don't know a lot about his policies yet but I like him personally. And in however many interviews I've seen with him, perhaps a half dozen or more, he hasn't said one thing that made me cringe as I do with most Republican candidates these days.

[WhoWee]

With all of the talk about Chris Cristie I was wondering if he may reconsider. He was just on Piers Morgan who asked if he was 100% certain that he won't run in 2012. Cristie stated clearly that he is 100% certain that he won't run. That was just after saying that he is brutally honest. So that seems to make it final.

So far, I really like Cristie. I don't know a lot about his policies yet but I like him personally. And in however many interviews I've seen with him, perhaps a half dozen or more, he hasn't said one thing that made me cringe as I do with most Republican candidates these days.

I think he needs to finish his first term as Governor - same with Rubio (Congress).

[Ivan Seeking]

I think he needs to finish his first term as Governor - same with Rubio (Congress).

I can imagine him being the next Republican that gets my vote. However, I would be concerned about his weight. For a man his age, that much extra weight calls into question, in a real sense, his longevity. He should go on a serious diet.

He reminds me of John Goodman when he played Speaker of the House, in the show, The West Wing. Cristie has that same pervasive, commanding, voluminous presense. Ironically, too much weight loss could detract from that.

[DoggerDan]

I've noticed how Cain is holding his own, but behind Romney. Yet the only polls I've seen compare him against other Republican candidates.

Do you think the Republicans realize that if Romney wins the primary they'll probably loose the race, but if Cain wins the primary they'll probably win the race?

The best party candidate isn't the most popular one in the party, but the one who stands the greatest chance of defeating the other party's candidate.

[WhoWee]

I've noticed how Cain is holding his own, but behind Romney. Yet the only polls I've seen compare him against other Republican candidates.

Do you think the Republicans realize that if Romney wins the primary they'll probably loose the race, but if Cain wins the primary they'll probably win the race?

The best party candidate isn't the most popular one in the party, but the one who stands the greatest chance of defeating the other party's candidate.

Why do you think Cain is more electable than Romney?

[mheslep]

I've noticed how Cain is holding his own, but behind Romney. Yet the only polls I've seen compare him against other Republican candidates.
...Cain's at least tied with Romney, with a couple polls showing Cain in the lead, 26 to 24%.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/cain-romney-polls-2012/2011/10/05/id/413390

[Proton Soup]

not that i think she's got a snowball's chance, but Bachmann is apparently a regular recipient of contributions from the Koch Brothers, who are finding themselves under quite a bit of fire at the moment because of their Iran deals.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00236489&cycle=2008

and Iran ain't even the half of it: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html

lots of old stuff, and apparently this is being timed for the political cycle. but sure to be poison for many a candidate and issue affected by these guys.

[mheslep]

not that i think she's got a snowball's chance, but Bachmann is apparently a regular recipient of contributions from the Koch Brothers, ...$5000 for this election cycle? So?

[Proton Soup]

$5000 for this election cycle? So?

how much does it cost to corrupt people?

[DoggerDan]

Why do you think Cain is more electable than Romney?

In the republication primaries, he's not.

In the general election, he is.

[WhoWee]

In the republication primaries, he's not.

In the general election, he is.

I know what you meant - "electable" implies success in the general election. Accordingly, I'll restate my question with greater specificity - why do you think Cain is more electable than Romney in the general election against the current President (Obama)?

[skippy1729]

...I'll restate my question with greater specificity - why do you think Cain is more electable than Romney in the general election against the current President (Obama)?

1. Impact on the African-American vote. One third of Obama's margin of victory was due to increased African-American turnout (see table 1 of http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/73/5/995.full.pdf+html). Even if this increased turnout was not a one time event, it is inconceivable that Obama could hold on to 96% of the African-American vote against Cain.

2. Romneycare, anti-abortion credentials and his religion will cause a small percentage of the Republican base to stay home. I have made the acquaintance of evangelicals who do not consider Romney a Christian and will not vote for him. There are extremists in every direction.

3. Cain is direct and up-front in the presentation of his ideas. Romney dances like a politician (as does Obama).

4. The 2008 election shows that experience as an elected does not carry too much weight. Cain's executive experience is comparable to Romney's and both exceed Obama's.

5. Romney and Obama come off as elitists, Cain does not.

Skippy

[Char. Limit]

He's the CEO of a corporation. How does he NOT come off as elitist to you?

They're kind of, ya know, the elite.

[Proton Soup]

He's the CEO of a corporation. How does he NOT come off as elitist to you?

They're kind of, ya know, the elite.

friends of mine used to talk about Sam Walton driving up to his stores in his old ford pickup. the employees loved the guy. this was back in the days when walmart was pushing made-in-the-usa products, too.

there's lots of non-elitist CEOs out there.

[skippy1729]

He's the CEO of a corporation. How does he NOT come off as elitist to you?

They're kind of, ya know, the elite.

For me, an elitist is someone whose self-perceived image of their superiority oozes from every pore of their body. It has nothing to do with money. It is the "I am better and smarter than everyone else" attitude. I am not talking about confidence, I am talking about arrogance.

Skippy

[WhoWee]

For me, an elitist is someone whose self-perceived image of their superiority oozes from every pore of their body. It has nothing to do with money. It is the "I am better and smarter than everyone else" attitude. I am not talking about confidence, I am talking about arrogance.

Skippy

I get that vibe from the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[mheslep]

He's the CEO of a corporation. How does he NOT come off as elitist to you?

No.

Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee, son of Luther Cain, Jr. and his wife Lenora Davis. His mother was a cleaning woman and his father, who was raised on a farm, was a chauffeur. He grew up in Georgia. Cain graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics, and received a Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University in 1971, when he was also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy. As a civilian ballistics analyst, he was responsible for developing fire control systems for ships and fighter planes.No scholarship to elite private prep schools in Hawaii, no Ivy League. There is however one thing that strikes me as arrogant about the man, and only one: why can he not be bothered to run for some lower state or federal office first? Where did he draw the go-directly-to-the-Presidency card?

[Vanadium 50]

why can he not be bothered to run for some lower state or federal office first? Where did he draw the go-directly-to-the-Presidency card?

Hi did. He ran for senator and lost.

[WhoWee]

Romney/Gingrich 2012 is looking better by the day! Newt even specified (on CNN to Blitzer 10/5/11) the answer would'nt be "no" to a VP offer if he doesn't win the nomination.

[Proton Soup]

i'm really liking the alligator idea. in fact, i would go further and have sharks with laser beams patrolling the coasts.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/06/334170/herman-cain-top-10/

if he won the nomination, i think the Reps would have to spend a lot of time coaching him.

[mheslep]

Hi did. He ran for senator and lost.Thanks, I missed that, which changes my opinion for the better.

[BobG]

i'm really liking the alligator idea. in fact, i would go further and have sharks with laser beams patrolling the coasts.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/06/334170/herman-cain-top-10/

if he won the nomination, i think the Reps would have to spend a lot of time coaching him.

I don't think alligators would survive in the Southwestern United States. They're not very aggressive, anyway. They would only attack people wandering too close to their eggs.

Cain doesn't know the difference between alligators and crocodiles!

Actually, even crocodiles would require a pretty expensive moat. The moat would have to be a mini-habitat. But the mini-habitat wouldn't have to be maintained all that well, because crocodiles don't mind brackish water.

[WhoWee]

CNN commentators are tripping over one another trying to discredit Romney - only enforces my opinion of the best ticket - Romney/Gingrich 2012!

[Proton Soup]

CNN commentators are tripping over one another trying to discredit Romney - only enforces my opinion of the best ticket - Romney/Gingrich 2012!

eh, i didn't watch the post-debate stuff. couldn't help but chuckle at how Perry is such a hothead, tho. Perry goin' down! and Romney... the man's a damn good liar, smiling the whole time.

i think i wouldn't mind seeing Paul with somebody like Gingrich. he's a bit of snake, but a damn smart one at least.

[WhoWee]

eh, i didn't watch the post-debate stuff. couldn't help but chuckle at how Perry is such a hothead, tho. Perry goin' down! and Romney... the man's a damn good liar, smiling the whole time.

i think i wouldn't mind seeing Paul with somebody like Gingrich. he's a bit of snake, but a damn smart one at least.

If I were Gingrich - I'd look directly into the camera and speak soft and clearly and say - I'm the only candidate on this stage that would make President Obama wish he were debating someone else.

[DoggerDan]

I know what you meant - "electable" implies success in the general election. Accordingly, I'll restate my question with greater specificity - why do you think Cain is more electable than Romney in the general election against the current President (Obama)?

Since you're putting it that way, in the form of a hypothetical yet improbable (due to current two-party system rules) three-way election, I think the republican vote would simply be split between Romney and Cain, while the full measure of the Democrat vote would go to Obama.

On the other hand, let's assume Clinton and Obama both ran against Cain and Romney. Who might win then?

Haven't a clue.

Getting back to reality, I think it's important to work within the actual structure, and doing so, my original point stands in that I believe people need to determine what's most important to them. Is it the election of their candidate of choice? Or is it to ensure their party's candidate gets elected?

That's where things get complicated, and depending on one's goals, one's choice may be dependent on the candidates in the other party.

[WhoWee]

Since you're putting it that way, in the form of a hypothetical yet improbable (due to current two-party system rules) three-way election, I think the republican vote would simply be split between Romney and Cain, while the full measure of the Democrat vote would go to Obama.

On the other hand, let's assume Clinton and Obama both ran against Cain and Romney. Who might win then?

Haven't a clue.

Getting back to reality, I think it's important to work within the actual structure, and doing so, my original point stands in that I believe people need to determine what's most important to them. Is it the election of their candidate of choice? Or is it to ensure their party's candidate gets elected?

That's where things get complicated, and depending on one's goals, one's choice may be dependent on the candidates in the other party.

Actually, I didn't intend to mean a 3 person race - a breakout candidate Cain running on the TEA Party or other ticket would split the vote.

I was asking who has a better chance of beating Obama head to head as the Republican candidate - Romney or Cain?

[DoggerDan]

Actually, I didn't intend to mean a 3 person race - a breakout candidate Cain running on the TEA Party or other ticket would split the vote.

I was asking who has a better chance of beating Obama head to head as the Republican candidate - Romney or Cain?

I think Cain. Several reports have confirmed Cain would capture the attention of the South, while Romney would not, yet Cain appeals to conservatives as much as Romney does.

[WhoWee]

I think Cain. Several reports have confirmed Cain would capture the attention of the South, while Romney would not, yet Cain appeals to conservatives as much as Romney does.

Cain might pull Conservative Repub and Southern votes - but Romney would attract the Independents and center-right/moderate Dems.

[BobG]

There's two different strategies for selecting a candidate:

1) Select the candidate perceived as most likely to win even if you don't think he'll pursue the objectives you really want them to.
2) Select the candidate that's most likely to accomplish your objectives and just hope.

Considering the way elections usually go, the second option isn't as bad a strategy as one might think.

The Consumer Confidence Index heavily influences how an election will go - especially the expectations index. The lowest expectations index for an incumbent (or a candidate from the same party as the incumbent) that won the Presidential election was Bush 43 with an expectations index of about 92. The highest for an incumbent (or a candidate from the same party as the incumbent) that lost the election was Gore with an expectations index of about 108.

Currently, the expectations index is about 52. Obama will never survive that kind of rating if it's still that low next fall no matter who his oponent is. Then again, that index can change rather rapidly. Just last summer, the expectations index was around 80 or so.

Expectations index depends heavily on the job outlook. The best strategy for Obama to recover is to push the unemployment rate down regardless of what it does to the economy. I think it's real doubtful he'll push that jobless rate down far enough get the expectations index anywhere close to the midrange (100 is considered midrange and neutral).

Given that, it's not a bad gamble to go for the candidate most appealing to conservatives and let the election go however it goes.

[WhoWee]

There's two different strategies for selecting a candidate:

1) Select the candidate perceived as most likely to win even if you don't think he'll pursue the objectives you really want them to.
2) Select the candidate that's most likely to accomplish your objectives and just hope.

Considering the way elections usually go, the second option isn't as bad a strategy as one might think.

The Consumer Confidence Index heavily influences how an election will go - especially the expectations index. The lowest expectations index for an incumbent (or a candidate from the same party as the incumbent) that won the Presidential election was Bush 43 with an expectations index of about 92. The highest for an incumbent (or a candidate from the same party as the incumbent) that lost the election was Gore with an expectations index of about 108.

Currently, the expectations index is about 52. Obama will never survive that kind of rating if it's still that low next fall no matter who his oponent is. Then again, that index can change rather rapidly. Just last summer, the expectations index was around 80 or so.

Expectations index depends heavily on the job outlook. The best strategy for Obama to recover is to push the unemployment rate down regardless of what it does to the economy. I think it's real doubtful he'll push that jobless rate down far enough get the expectations index anywhere close to the midrange (100 is considered midrange and neutral).

Given that, it's not a bad gamble to go for the candidate most appealing to conservatives and let the election go however it goes.

There is a lot of talk about the "not Romney" Republican primary vote. I'm convinced there will be a good number of persons voting "not Obama" in the general election.

[skeptic2]

The best strategy for Obama to recover is to push the unemployment rate down regardless of what it does to the economy. I think it's real doubtful he'll push that jobless rate down far enough get the expectations index anywhere close to the midrange (100 is considered midrange and neutral).

The Republicans too appear to be keenly aware of the importance of the unemployment rate in Obama's reelection. Could that explain their opposition to everything that would reduce the unemployment rate? For instance, cutting spending will cause the loss of jobs in the short term whereas increased spending, while bad for the budget short term, will put more people to work immediately and increase tax revenues long term.

[WhoWee]

The Republicans too appear to be keenly aware of the importance of the unemployment rate in Obama's reelection. Could that explain their opposition to everything that would reduce the unemployment rate? For instance, cutting spending will cause the loss of jobs in the short term whereas increased spending, while bad for the budget short term, will put more people to work immediately and increase tax revenues long term.

Do you have a specific piece of legislation in mind?

[BobG]

Do you have a specific piece of legislation in mind?

That would be the Obama jobs bill, and the broken up version of the jobs bill that Dems are trying to push through piece by piece.

Killing it could be a problem for Republican incumbent legislators next election, but Obama blaming the bill's failure on Republicans probably won't work in a Presidential election unless the Republican candidate is a Republican Congressman that personally voted to kill it (and then it would still be a hard sell, just because time erases a lot of things).

Running against a Republican governor that had nothing to do with killing the bill and the only thing that will matter is whether people have jobs or not - not who voted for or against a bill that may have or may not have improved unemployment rates if it had passed.

There are exceptions. Truman ran against a do-nothing Congress and won an upset victory. But there's never a guarantee that the underdog will lose - it's just a lot more likely that the underdog will lose.

[WhoWee]

That would be the Obama jobs bill, and the broken up version of the jobs bill that Dems are trying to push through piece by piece.

Killing it could be a problem for Republican incumbent legislators next election, but Obama blaming the bill's failure on Republicans probably won't work in a Presidential election unless the Republican candidate is a Republican Congressman that personally voted to kill it (and then it would still be a hard sell, just because time erases a lot of things).

Running against a Republican governor that had nothing to do with killing the bill and the only thing that will matter is whether people have jobs or not - not who voted for or against a bill that may have or may not have improved unemployment rates if it had passed.

There are exceptions. Truman ran against a do-nothing Congress and won an upset victory. But there's never a guarantee that the underdog will lose - it's just a lot more likely that the underdog will lose.

If I were the 2012 Republican candidate - saddled with the problem you've described - my response would be to show endless commercials of President Obama promising jobs from the first stimulus (and the healthcare Bill) and endless video of the thousands of (expensive) highway signs that claimed the projects were funded by the stimulus.

[skeptic2]

Running against a Republican governor that had nothing to do with killing the bill and the only thing that will matter is whether people have jobs or not - not who voted for or against a bill that may have or may not have improved unemployment rates if it had passed..

I agree. At this point in time it looks like Obama will lose but the Democrats will pick up a few seats in both houses.

[mheslep]

I agree. At this point in time it looks like Obama will lose but the Democrats will pick up a few seats in both houses.What Presidential election do you have in mind where the new President's party ever lost (net) seats in Congress at the same time?

[skippy1729]

I don't think I can listen to any more Republican debates. Most of them agree on the important issues (cut spending, cut taxes, seal the border, repeal Obamacare) and nit-pick trivial issues. Hopefully Perry and Romney will spend tens of millions on MAD (mutually assured destruction) tv ads. That could leave a three way race: Cain, Newt and maybe a distant Santorum. I do wish Bachman and Ron Paul would drop out. Close your eyes and imagine either of them debating the president; it would be sine die for the campaign. Speaking of debates, Newt has said he would follow the president from stump to stump challenging the president to a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. That would really be something to behold!

Skippy

[Vanadium 50]

What Presidential election do you have in mind where the new President's party ever lost (net) seats in Congress at the same time?

Election of 2000.

[mheslep]

Election of 2000.
That would be the time with Gore winning the popular vote, but I still don't see it any pick up in either chamber. The House remained Republican, and if the Democrats picked up any seats it is in the single digits which I can't resolve here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives. PNG
Senate switched to D. majority for 2-3 weeks after the 2000 election, then flipped back again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate#List_of_ party_leaders

[mheslep]

Republican candidate agreement yes/no:
... (cut spending,
Yes
[QUOTE]cut taxes,
No, they would all cut tax rates but also eliminate deductions in various ways so it takes some work to assess whether tax revenue goes up/down
seal the border,
No. Paul in particular opposes.
repeal Obamacare)
Yes

[skippy1729]

To mhelsep: I did say most of them agree.

[BobG]

I don't think I can listen to any more Republican debates. Most of them agree on the important issues (cut spending, cut taxes, seal the border, repeal Obamacare) and nit-pick trivial issues. Hopefully Perry and Romney will spend tens of millions on MAD (mutually assured destruction) tv ads. That could leave a three way race: Cain, Newt and maybe a distant Santorum. I do wish Bachman and Ron Paul would drop out. Close your eyes and imagine either of them debating the president; it would be sine die for the campaign. Speaking of debates, Newt has said he would follow the president from stump to stump challenging the president to a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. That would really be something to behold!

Skippy

Here's the funny thing. I think Bachmann will win the Iowa caucuses and Paul will do better than one might initially think. In fact, my early predictions:

Iowa: Bachmann wins, Perry finishes second, and Paul finishes third. Bachmann has the best organization in Iowa and Perry has stumbled lately. The Paul campaign organizes well, even if he'll never appeal to the general populace - Iowa caucuses are tailor made for Paul-like campaigns. Cain has a third tier candidate organization, even if he's risen in the polls and his organization in Iowa is truly weak. If Paul beats Perry for second, which is possible, it could be a real blow to Perry's credibility.

New Hampshire: Romney hands down. I think Perry edges Cain out for second, but this state could be Cain's pivotal moment and finishing second would be a real triumph for him. If Cain finishes second, and Paul beats out Perry for third, then Perry's campaign is on the verge of elimination. Theoretically, Huntsman could get a result in this state, but I just don't think he's elevated his visibility enough to do anything at all.

South Carolina: Perry wins. If Gingrich is ever going to make an impact (which I doubt he will) he has to get some kind of result no later than South Carolina and unless Bachmann turns an Iowa victory into something, no one besides Perry will be strong in South Carolina. I think Gingrich has crashed by this point and it goes Perry, Romney, and Bachmann (but I'm really clueless after Perry).

Florida: This should be the showdown between Romney and Perry. I say Romney wins, Perry finishes second, and Cain finishes third. If Gingrich has managed to do something in South Carolina, then Florida is also crucial to him, but I really think Florida is the nail in the coffin and the point where Gingrich officially drops out. If Perry is going to win the nomination, this state is where he has to turn the corner and become the true front runner.

There's a big difference between Cain and Huckabee. Huckabee may have had a low budget, but he was an experienced politician with a sound campaign organization. Cain can turn some good early outings into more money, but, even if he does, he's going to have a hard time turning that money into a sound campaign organization.

I don't think it will happen, but if Gingrich were to have a chance, he'd need a first or second in Iowa (damaging Perry in the process), Cain upsetting Perry for 2nd in NH, leaving a vacuum to be filled in SC - and then Gingrich fills it. If the best possible situation had happened up to that point, then Gingrich would still need a win in Florida - an upset to be sure, but at least an upset within the realm of possibility. If all of that happened, then you'd have a Romney-Gingrich battle where Gingrich would still be the underdog, but at least have established himself as a viable possibility.

Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain, and Paul are just snipers that can damage Perry, but aren't strong enough candidates to win for themselves. Of the four, Gingrich might be the most realistic candidate, but I just don't see it happening for him. He'll be the Giuliani of this election season. Of course, by the end of the summer of 2007, one would have thought McCain was a lot more likely than Giuliani to crash and burn, so any predictions are just sand that can quickly blow away.

[mheslep]

Nah, I think Gingrich will finish top three in Iowa.

Edit: re Florida: If Jeb Bush makes an endorsement and follows up on it so goes Florida.

[WhoWee]

Nah, I think Gingrich will finish top three in Iowa.

He might - if Bachmann takes Iowa, I doubt Perry will finish in the top 3 spots.

[BobG]

Nah, I think Gingrich will finish top three in Iowa.

Edit: re Florida: If Jeb Bush makes an endorsement and follows up on it so goes Florida.

Perhaps.

I still think Gingrich is the perfect example of why Huckabee and Palin both decided to stay out of the race. Being a candidate can really damage a lot of your personal interests (Gingrich Inc. wounded by presidential bid (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gOeTRCuYapW60A8T1FY1EQk9cN9g?docId=4298cf242 4d7494f8e457aa6ef8f0cf9)).

Is staying in the race simply to try and rebuild some foundation for his personal interests? Since he released his 21st Century Contract of America, he's been using his campaign appearances not only to advance his campaign, but to plug both his books and his wife's new children's book. Nothing wrong with that and it doesn't exactly detract from his campaign message, but it does remind some people (his opponents, mostly (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-campaign-trail-gingrich-bolsters-his-brand/2011/09/28/gIQA0rlV7K_story.html)) that he does have to make sure he still has a life to go back to after this campaign.

It raises issues about how serious Gingrich really is. Is he another Fred Thompson that just never really put in the focused effort needed to win?

If he is, top two would be good as long as top two put him ahead of Perry.