Will Joe Scarborough and David Petraeus Run for President in 2012?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential candidacies of Joe Scarborough and David Petraeus for the 2012 presidential election. Participants explore various perspectives on their viability as candidates, the implications of their backgrounds, and the broader political landscape leading up to the election.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that major donors and GOP strategists are considering Joe Scarborough for a national run, while others express skepticism about Petraeus's political ambitions.
  • There is speculation about Rick Santorum being a top contender, indicating a broader field of potential candidates.
  • Concerns are raised regarding Petraeus's lack of declared political affiliation and how that might affect his candidacy.
  • Participants discuss the implications of military leaders entering politics, with some arguing that they may lack independent political beliefs due to their military training.
  • Some express doubt about Petraeus's chances in the current political climate, suggesting that voters may be hesitant to elect someone with a military background.
  • There are differing opinions on the future of the Republican Party, with some predicting a long period out of power while others suggest potential candidates like Mike Huckabee could emerge.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether Scarborough or Petraeus will run or be successful if they do. Multiple competing views on the political landscape and the viability of various candidates remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the political affiliations of potential candidates and the impact of current political sentiments on their chances. There is also a lack of clarity regarding the implications of military service on political candidacy.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those following U.S. politics, particularly in relation to the 2012 presidential election and the dynamics of candidate selection within the Republican Party.

  • #31
http://www.imagerise.com/show.php/532434_CthulhuDagon2012.PNG.html

http://www.imagerise.com/show.php/532435_cthulhubumperstickerwebimage.jpg.html

Just saying...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
WhoWee said:
A lot has happened since the 2008 elections. The Democrats are like spoiled children - I want, give me, I need - if you don't agree you're a racist.

The candidate that runs on change and transparency, no earmarks or special interests allowed, line by line review of ALL spending, fiscal responsibility, support of the "good war" in Afghanistan, and smart diplomacy - needs to practice what he preaches. The first step might be to get out of "campaign mode" - 112 interviews as of Monday and a full hour on Letterman is a bit much.

I think people are really confused about the earmarking issue. Earmarks are specific directions with regards to spending. The alternative is giving the executive broad leverage on how to spend the money allocated in a bill.

From wikipedia:

The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

Attempts have been made to define earmarks in ethics and budget reform legislation. However, due to the controversial nature of earmarks and the effects these definitions would have on Congressional power, none of these has been widely accepted.

Despite the lack of a consensus definition, the one used most widely was developed by the Congressional Research Service, the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress:

"Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report)."[2]