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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on potential candidates for the 2012 presidential election, with notable mentions including David Petraeus and Joe Scarborough. Bob Dole has expressed support for Petraeus, suggesting he could be a strong contender due to his military background and leadership during the Iraq surge. However, Petraeus has not declared any political affiliation, which raises questions about his potential candidacy. The conversation also touches on the dynamics of the Republican nomination process, highlighting changes that may favor darkhorse candidates and lead to a more chaotic primary season. There is skepticism about the Republican Party's ability to regain power, with some predicting a long-term Democratic hold, particularly with figures like Hillary Clinton potentially running in future elections. The discussion also critiques the current political climate, with concerns about health care reform and fiscal responsibility dominating the conversation. Overall, the thread reflects a mix of speculation about candidates and broader political strategies as the 2012 election approaches.
  • #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]