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
SUMMARY

Joe Scarborough and David Petraeus are being considered as potential candidates for the 2012 presidential election, with major GOP donors expressing interest in Scarborough, the host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe." Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole has publicly supported Petraeus, the former head of U.S. Central Command, as a strong candidate. Discussions indicate that Petraeus has not declared a political affiliation, which complicates his potential candidacy. The forum participants speculate on the implications of health care reform on the Republican candidate's chances against President Obama.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of U.S. presidential election cycles
  • Familiarity with the roles of military leaders in politics
  • Knowledge of health care reform debates in the U.S.
  • Awareness of key political figures and their influence
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the impact of military leadership on political candidacy
  • Examine the history of health care reform in U.S. elections
  • Analyze the political strategies of GOP candidates in 2012
  • Investigate public sentiment towards potential candidates like Scarborough and Petraeus
USEFUL FOR

Political analysts, campaign strategists, and anyone interested in the dynamics of U.S. presidential elections and the influence of military figures in politics.

  • #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]