March 9, 2011 5:28 am at 5:28 am #903338
Patrick Buchanan and Ron Paul are really the only two true anti-Semites prominent in American politics today. Yet they are being promoted on a frum site? Clearly some of our commenters here are completely assimilated into the Torah of Ayn Rand.March 9, 2011 5:54 am at 5:54 am #903339
“Koufax did not refuse to pitch on Yom Kippur. He was spared that since Don Drysdale would have normally pitched in the rotation that day. “
Never did Koufax pitch on Yom Kippur. He sat out important games in both 1961 and 1966, and the Dodgers lost both games.
Koufax had pitched on October 2, 1965, allowing 4 hits and 1 run as the Dodgers defeated the Milwaukee Braves, 3-1, clinching the National League Pennant. The World Series started October 6, 1965. Back then, pitchers pitched every four days and managers tried to get their best pitcher to pitch the first, fourth, and seventh (if necessary) games of the World Series. But October 6 was 10 Tishrei.
You may be thinking of 1966. Koufax had been scheduled to pitch September 24, 1966, but that was Yom Kippur; the Dodgers lost 4-0 to the Chicago Cubs and yet another future Hall of Famer, Ferguson Jenkins, still the only Canadian in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Koufax had pitched the last game of the season, the second game of a doubleheader, on Sunday, October 2, 1966, which the Dodgers needed to win to clinch the Pennant. They defeated Philadelphia, 3-1. (The losing pitcher was future Baseball Hall of Famer and US Senator Jim Bunning.) Koufax had also pitched three days earlier, on Thursday September 29, as the Dodgers defeated the St. Louis Cardinals, 2-1. Ordinarily Koufax would not have pitched on two days rest, but when it was win or nothing, you do desperate things. (The Dodgers had lost the two games in between, and Koufax had pitched and won Game 7 of the 1965 World Series on two days rest.) Drysdale had lost the first game of the doubleheader, pitching only 2 innings, so he started Game 1 of the World Series on two days rest, losing 5-2 to Baltimore. Koufax pitched Game 2 of the 1966 World Series on the usual three days rest and the Dodgers lost 6-0 thanks in part to some awful defensive play; the winning pitcher was a not-quite-21-year-old named Jim Palmer who would also end up in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Nobody knew it at the time but it would be the last game Koufax would ever pitch.March 29, 2011 7:17 pm at 7:17 pm #903340FAD UPParticipant
defently not palin or bachman i personaly think that a woman cant take this job no matter if her name is clinton or she has a down sindrome h”y i think christie,rubio or scot walker would be great cause we need now some big lion fightersMarch 29, 2011 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #903341
With all due respect, I disagree. Margaret Thatcher, a woman, is considered one of the finest leaders of the past century. Of course you can point to Golda Meir to support your theory, but I’ll suggest Jimmy Carter as a rebuttal to that claim.
As I’ve already pointed out in another thread, Sarah Palin, despite her charisma, connectivity to the voters and correct priorities, is not one that you would want in the White House at this time. We need a serious thinker without rhetoric or a celebrity status to lead this nation is such trying times. We currently have hype in the Oval Office and it didn’t fare us well.April 13, 2011 1:58 am at 1:58 am #903342
For the office of 45th President of the United States, 2013-2021:
1. Michael Dale “Mike” Huckabee
2. Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich
3. Herman Cain (conservative values and a division of the black vote will hinder Obama)
For the office of 48th Vice President of the United States, 2013-2021:
1. John Ellis “Jeb” Bush (the former governor of Florida may draw its 29 voted; his wife is Mexican
2. Marco Antonio Rubio (as Florida’s junior Senator, he’d attract Florida, and as a Cuban-American, he’d draw the Hispanic vote, which is an enormous bloc)
3. Gen. David Howell Petraeus (as the symbol of American success in Afghanistan and Iraq, he could be the new “Ike”)
Note: My preferences for the Presidency are actually
a) John Ellis “Jeb” Bush
b) Michael Dale “Mike” Huckabee
c) Gen. David Howell Petraeus
However, since both Bush and Petraeus have stated that they do not wish to run for the nation’s highest office, I have had to adjust my list of preferences. Nonetheless, I have included both persons in my list of choices for the Vice Presidency, as it remains a possibility that they will allow themselves to be coaxed into running for the office of President of the Senate.
As for charliehall‘s original post in this thread, I am indeed worried about Allan J. Lichtman’s Keys to the White House. Then I remind myself that ultimately, HaShem Yisborach is in charge.April 13, 2011 3:09 am at 3:09 am #903343
Why has nobody mentioned Mitch Daniels?April 13, 2011 4:27 am at 4:27 am #903344
newhere, at last…
Someone finally mentioned the remote Hoosier Governor as the man to run for National office. My Man Mitch — The “Blade” — is my pick for the top of the ticket to take on Obama in 2012. I hope to compile a profile (and more than just another profile) for the person I believe can take this country back on track, in the next few days.
Give Me a Break,
You seem to have quite of a conservative litmus test for your candidates (as your list suggests — Herman Cain). I therefore wonder where Petraeus (a self-described Rockefeller Republican) gets into the picture…
Additionally, I just wanted to tell you: Don’t worry about Lichtman’s Keys to the White House. I leave these theories up to liberal professors (in the likes of our fellow member Charlie Hall). These theories come and go and fade with time. If you analyze Lichtman’s factors, you can see how it was constantly amended to stay viable. You must forever ask what “Social Unrest” means and what Military Success/Failure defines etc. and tailor it accordingly. Nevertheless, I am currently preparing something that works with his keys — against Obama’s favor.April 13, 2011 5:01 am at 5:01 am #903345
Now that I’ve disclosed my choice for the top of the ticket, I thinks I should just roll out my picks (I will elaborate and explain more about it in the future):
First Choice: Mitch Daniels/Marco Rubio
A combination of executive experience (on the top of ticket) with legislative experience. A serious ticket that will convey a strong economic message and will attract moderates and Tea Partiers alike. This balanced ticket (with Indiana and Florida both vital states for Obama) also has two different levels of charisma.
Second Choice: Chris Christie/Paul Ryan
Christie has the belly and Ryan has the brains to put this country back on a fiscally moral track. This ticket has no minority but has two great men from blue states (across the spectrum of the country) that have already changed America. This ticket also has executive (although sparse) experience on the top and legislative on the bottom.
Third Choice: Tim Pawlenty/Nikki Haley
Pawlenty would be a great every year candidate, or better yet, vice presidential candidate. He has a great record as governor in a purple/blue swing state and has the right message. However, he is much too dull — which makes him my third choice. Haley has the firebrand and will excite the base while capturing female and minority votes. She has the healthcare issue to her favor. This can be considered the “Tea Party” ticket. Yet, Pawlenty can easily attract independents and Democrats as he did in the past.April 13, 2011 1:21 pm at 1:21 pm #903346
davehirsch- Glad to see there’s someone here who realizes that Daniels is clearly the best choice for president. I always find it funny when the media discusses all the “baggage ” potential candidates have. It goes something like this: “Ginrich and Trump have their marriage issues, Romeny has RomneyCare, Pawlenty is too dull and a little too into the green stuff, Huckabee pardoned a killer and is not conservative enough on immigration, and Daniels was caught with pot in the 1970s.” It’s hilarious that is the dirt they come up with on Daniels, he was caught with pot 30 years ago!! That’s how you know he’s the best choice for president. I agree with all that you wrote except I would prefer a Daniels/Ryan ticket. No better people than these two to tackle the budget.April 13, 2011 2:21 pm at 2:21 pm #903347
Seems like we’re the only two wonks or eggheads here…
I don’t think that smoking pot is Daniels’ “baggage.” His lack of charisma and unpresidential looks (add his humble demeanor) is his problem. I try to convince myself that it will do, and with good reason, nevertheless it is truly my biggest concern. To fill that vacuum, I chose Rubio. Rubio also has the benefit of making the ticket quite a balanced one (Indiana-Florida is more balanced than Indiana-Wisconsin). This is besides the advantage of a Cuban-American on the ticket. There is more to it, and I’ll discuss it at ample time.
I’m a big fan of Paul Ryan. He tells Americans the truth about the fiscal future of this country (I’d say Daniels says the full truth and Ryan says only part of the truth). Yet, a joint ticket with these two will have only one message (albeit a strong one) and a pessimistic one at that. It might backfire. I also believe that two economic think-tanks would clash if serving together. Each person will have their own ideas that they’ll like to implement. I’d also prefer to have one brain in the executive branch and another in the legislative branch — not to put all of our resources at the White House.
*Lately, there has been a myth that Daniels supports a one-sided truce on social issues. This is also baggage. He’d have to use his strong pro-life/anti-Toeiva record to prove the voters that he’s on board with them and simply wants to focus better on the bigger threat. He might try to frame the debate as: Republicans want to reform the bad things for a better future while the Democrats punt and focus on social issue instead — which won’t “win the future.”April 13, 2011 7:35 pm at 7:35 pm #903348chayav inish livisumayParticipant
Donald TrumpApril 13, 2011 8:18 pm at 8:18 pm #903349
davehirsch- I hear what you’re saying about Rubio, you may be right that Daniels needs someone like him as a running mate. However, I disagree with you about Daniels’ lack of charisma. The way I define charisma is that when that person speaks I want to hear everything he has to say. The media likes to call Obama charismatic, but for the life I me I can’t understand why. When he starts to speak I have no interest in hearing what he has to say, and the amount of “uhs” he uses really irks me. This has nothing to do with his policies, I could listen to Clinton speak for hours even though I can’t stand his policies. Daniels, on the other hand, has something to him that make you want to hear what he has to say. As George Will put it, he has the charisma of competence. Also, it’s true that he’s short, but he is a very good-looking put together fellow, and I don’t think looks will be an issue.April 13, 2011 9:03 pm at 9:03 pm #903350
davehirsch- I hear what you’re saying about Rubio, you may be right that Daniels needs someone like him as a running mate. However, I disagree with you about Daniels’ lack of charisma. The way I define charisma is that when that person speaks I want to hear everything he has to say. The media likes to call Obama charismatic, but for the life I me I can’t understand why. When he starts to speak I have no interest in hearing what he has to say, and the amount of “uhs” he uses really irks me. This has nothing to do with his policies, I could listen to Clinton speak for hours even though I can’t stand his policies. Daniels, on the other hand, has something to him that make you want to hear what he has to say. As George Will put it, he has the charisma of competence. Also, it’s true that he’s short, but he is a very good-looking put together fellow, and I don’t think looks will be an issue.April 13, 2011 11:47 pm at 11:47 pm #903351
I agree with you on Daniels’ charisma (note how I wrote two levels of charisma). I actually loved Will’s statements at CPAC and nodded when he said charisma of competence. Will also noted that America has elected short presidents in the past. Nevertheless, he doesn’t have the presidential looks and charisma. His humble demeanor might affect his firebrand and Rubio can fill that vacuum.
I actually have had a theory for quite a while about the charisma gap. I believe that Americans have no patience for rhetoric; they want a competent man and just like Obama was the anti-Bush, Daniels will be the anti-Obama. This can be seen with Sarah Palin’s approval rating; it sharply declined even among conservative voters. Many conservative commentators also support this claim.April 14, 2011 2:04 am at 2:04 am #903352
That’s actually a pretty darn good question, and I don’t think my weak answers would suffice. But I’ll attempt to anyhow.
1. I miswrote when I said I’d put Petraeus in my Presidential lineup. Put Cain there instead.
2. Frankly, our bellicose-pacifist President hasn’t got a clue about the world, and while some of the Governors are great, they don’t have foreign policy experience.
3. Although I am indeed highly conservative (to be precise, a right-wing Reaganomics-slash-Bush Doctrine neoconservative), I am so sick of Obama that I’d even vote for Lieberman or McCain.
4. As Congress wages war, a military tiebreaker might help.
5. This one is funny, but… Petraeus looks like a President.
My ideal ticket would be Huckabee or Cain running with one of the Floridians. However, it would be a problem with Huckabee, as he is a resident of Florida.April 14, 2011 1:48 pm at 1:48 pm #903353
Give Me a Break
1. Sound like a politician…
2. True. However, you have to be an Obama/Carter idiot (sorry Mr. President — after yesterdays speech where you engaged in dumb partisan talk, I think you deserve it) to alienate allies (bellicose) and befriend enemies (pacifist). Ronald Reagan had no foreign policy credentials and he did great (better than former UN ambassador and CIA director George Bush). You need common sense to engage in diplomacy.
3. I’d even vote for Hillary over Obama. Remember, it’s our dream ticket we’re discussing here.
4. Valid reason. The question is if you’d want a VP for just one purpose.
5. I’d opt for Huntsman or Romney if it’s ony about presidential looks.
I would say that Patraeus
has the electibilty factor. He perhaps has the best chance to beat Obama (if foreign policy is the issue) and has absolutely no baggage.
What is the problem with Huckabee being a Florida resident? Arkansas or Georgia for that matter wouldn’t make the ticket any more balanced. Huckabee factually still has influence in Arkansas.
Which Floridians? Rubio and Scott?April 14, 2011 6:04 pm at 6:04 pm #903354
The problem with Huckabee being a Florida resident is that if he runs with one of the Florida residents (I refer to Rubio and Bush – Scott isn’t well liked in FL), the Florida electors would not be allowed to vote for both of them, as per the Constitution.
In regards to answer 3, my reasoning was sort of like your postscript – Petraeus is electable.
In regards to answer 2, the difference between Reagan’s era and now is that it was then a Cold War, not a physical one.April 14, 2011 7:04 pm at 7:04 pm #903355
” Don’t worry about Lichtman’s Keys to the White House. I leave these theories up to liberal professors (in the likes of our fellow member Charlie Hall”
While Lichtman *is* indeed a liberal, the last time the Lichtman keys failed was 1856. He predicted both the Bush 2004 and the Obama 2008 wins far in advance and predicted an Obama 2012 win last summer.April 14, 2011 7:13 pm at 7:13 pm #903356
Of all the mentionees here on the Republican side, I think Daniels would be the best candidate and a serious threat to Obama. He is a true believer right wing conservative but he also understands that government is needed — and he doesn’t go out of his way to offend people the way Chris Christie does. And Indiana is in pretty good fiscal shape today; he would certainly carry his home state, which Obama carried in 2008. (The last time that a candidate lost his home state but still managed a victory was 1916, and there is no way that Mitt Romney is going to carry Massachusetts.) The trouble for Daniels is that the reason Indiana is in pretty good fiscal shape today is that Daniels raised the sales tax, and that will kill him with Republican primary voters. The Tea Partiers who want to destroy government rather than to make it work better won’t accept that.
On the other extreme, I suspect that Trump or Palin might lose 49 states to Obama. (Trump could lose 50.)
Looking at things state by state, it is pretty hard to see Republicans switching enough states from 2008 to defeat Obama in 2012 — and Republican governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida are a major reason for that. Paul Ryan’s attempt to end Medicare as we know it has probably killed Republican chances in Florida.April 14, 2011 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #903357
“as Florida’s junior Senator, he’d attract Florida,”
Maybe if he could get Rick Scott to resign. He has really tarnished the Republican brand there. And Ryan’s plan to End Medicare As We Know It will be a huge weight on Republicans in any state with a lot of elderly voters.
” and as a Cuban-American, he’d draw the Hispanic vote, which is an enormous bloc”
Voters of other Hispanic ethnicities vote the opposite of Cuban-Americans.
BTW, add Pennsylvania to the states where an unpopular governor may be tarnishing Republican prospects. According to a recent PublicPolicyPolling survey, Corbett’s favorability is now at 34%. Toomey is doing even worse, 32%.April 14, 2011 7:42 pm at 7:42 pm #903358zen3344Participant
New here. Republican since I started voting; I do not understand how any Jew could have voted for this past ticket.
My choice for 2012 – Col. Allen West/Marco Rubio.April 14, 2011 8:16 pm at 8:16 pm #903359Feif UnParticipant
I think Christie would be a great President, but he’s said many times that he’s not interested in running. I would go with whoever the polls say has the best chance of beating Obama, regardless of what I think of him/her.April 15, 2011 3:00 am at 3:00 am #903360
As for Rubio, I am indeed worried about Scott’s tarnished reputation. That’s why I think Jeb Bush is a better choice than Rubio. After all, he is the only Republican governor of Florida to have won two terms.
Your point about the separate voting tendencies of Cubans and Mexicans is well-taken. However, it may be a rather different scenario if a Latino is actually ON the national ticket.
Ill say it again: the Constitution, both in its original form and as delineated in the Twelfth Amendment, expressly forbids Presidential electors from placing both their ballots for a resident of their State. Cheney got away with it by registering as a resident of Wyoming, which he had represented in Congress (like George W. Bush, he was a Texan). If Allen West would run with Marco Rubio, it would mean the loss of 29 electoral votes for one of them.April 15, 2011 4:04 pm at 4:04 pm #903362
Dave Hirsch- As someone who has similar political views as you do (although I have a feeling I’m a little more conservative than you), i was curious which of the republican contenders you would not vote for against Obama. I know I would vote for Obama over Ron Paul. I keep changing my mind if I would pick Trump over Obama. Right now I’m thinking I would probably would pick Trump. It’ll be a hail mary, chances are it’s a really bad idea, but who knows maybe this is what’s going to save our country.April 27, 2011 5:23 am at 5:23 am #903363
Haley Barbour is out. Barbour was deemed a powerful figure in a potential 2012 matchup given his extensive resume and fundraising capabilities. The former RNC Chairman will retire his gubernatorial post in the state of Mississippi in 2011 due to term limits. The successful Governor and RGA Chairman has a 70% approval rating in his homestate and leaves a remarkable record of leadership. However, as is the case with every career politician, Barbour had much baggage he would have to defend had he entered the race. He is still seen as a viable veep pick.
Haley Barbour’s exit can boost Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ chances for winning the nomination and can also signal that he will enter the race in general. Friends since they worked for President Reagan, Barbour and Daniels have a similar agenda and have defended each other quite often. Barbour’s cash advantage will benefit Daniels and can make him a serious contender.
Barbour’s exit also benefits former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. According to the elimination method, Pawlenty is out to gain from the departure of high profile anti-Romney candidates. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee might look at Barbour’s exit with interest. His decision whether to take the leap for the nomination, therby losing a well paying job at Fox News, can depend on whether he can capture the Southern vote that is now up for grabs with Barbour calling it quits. He can try to win Iowa and capture South Carolina to win the GOP nomination.April 27, 2011 7:37 am at 7:37 am #903364
Give Me a Break,
Oh! I didn’t think you were referring to the constitutional limitations placed upon the electors of a state with two of its residents on the ticket. This is absolutely no problem. Firstly, Huckabee can register as an Arkansas resident (despite the construction of his Florida mansion) as Cheney did (as you mentioned). Secondly, the President can still get the electorals of his state. It will only bar the electors to vote for the veep which would have to be decided in the Senate (which will likely be under Republican control).
I believe that the Republicans have better electable candidates than Petraeus. Mitch Daniels for one (recently called ‘serious’ by President Obama) is definitely electable.
True. However, the Cold War was a psychological war that left many Americans edgy about America’s exeptionalism; the war on terror is a war that needs to be lead from the Pentagon. Reagan induced optimism into the American public and boosted their morale that. Led to the collapse of the Soviets. General Petraeus would make a great Secretary of Defense and would perhaps be more effective working for the Pentagon than in the White House.
Although I know that Charlie Hall (and undoubtedly nfgo3 — the one who constantly distorts facts and engages in demagoguery to ‘Palinize’ me) will disagree with me, I tend to classify myself as a moderate. Nevertheless, I fundamentally believe that Obama is ruining this country. His ideology is making irreversible damage to this country — worse than you can ever imagine. While I will hesitate to pull the lever for Ron Paul, I will not vote for President Obama if he continues on this path. I’ll let you in on another secret: I probably have more in common ideologically with Ron Paul than with (the old) “The Donald.” My conviction is that Donald Trump’s shift in issues is as fraudulent as Obama’s birth certificate.April 27, 2011 1:46 pm at 1:46 pm #903365Dovid HaMelechMember
“My conviction is that Donald Trump’s shift in issues is as fraudulent as Obama’s birth certificate. “
Obama released his full long-form birth certificate today.April 27, 2011 3:06 pm at 3:06 pm #903366
At last. I am elated that the President has finally tackled this non-issue that will finally fade away to enable serious GOP candidates to focus on policy. Hopefully, along with the demise of the “Birthers” will we at least see the death of Donald Trump’s presidential ambitions. I, of course didn’t pretend to say that the fact that Obama was born here is fraudulent — I meant the issue of his birth certificate and as a swipe on The Donald. Although I questioned Obama’s judgement in hiding his birth certificate from the public thereby spending millions in defense, I believed that he was born in America as I’ve stated many times.
I do wonder why they chose to release his certificate now. If I were the Obama reelection campaign, I wouldv’e waited to be challenged in the General Election on this issue (if a Birther would win the GOP nomination and stress on this issue) to derail the Republican’s chances to beat Obama. I honestly question their judgement as its release will guarantee the focus on pressing issues such as the outragous debt, rising gas prices, threats of stagflation and the foreign policy failures of their administration.April 27, 2011 4:38 pm at 4:38 pm #903367GumBallMember
MOSHIACH!!April 27, 2011 8:01 pm at 8:01 pm #903368
If you mean Moshiach Ben Dovid, I do not want to see him on the ballot in 2012. I would like him to come NOW! Additionally, he has the eligibility issue…
If you’re referring to “The Messiah,” well, he most certainty will be on the ticket.April 27, 2011 9:31 pm at 9:31 pm #903369
I want either Huckabee or Gingrich as pres. And Palin as VP.April 27, 2011 10:05 pm at 10:05 pm #903370
Ron Paul has put out overtly anti-Semitic material in his publications. He and his son are trying to end US aid to Israel. I hope we can all agree that they are both beyond the pale.April 27, 2011 10:29 pm at 10:29 pm #903371Dovid HaMelechMember
Charlie: Regarding the son, opposing foreign aid is “beyond the pale”?April 27, 2011 10:32 pm at 10:32 pm #903372
Hey Charlie – Wouldn’t you agree that my picks are more pro Israel, than Mr. Obama?April 27, 2011 10:34 pm at 10:34 pm #903373cleverjewishpunMember
Ron and Rand Paul want to end all foreign aid to every country including Israel. He’s not singling out the Jews like some of the people on the left who want to “stop funding the occupation”
But ending aid to everyone (including Israel)is fine with me, when you take aid from a country that does not have your best interests at heart then all you are doing is giving them control over your internal decisions that best suits their needs. It’s better to cut the purse strings and do things your way.
One of these days maybe “our people” will wake up and realize that not every conservative white xtian male is out get them.April 27, 2011 10:38 pm at 10:38 pm #903374
I agree with you about Ron but not about Rand. Ron has made many troubling statements (as I already posted in the past, I believe). It is very unlikely that I would vote for Ron Paul (if there’s a third party candidate that has similar views to those of myself). I should also note that Obama has a troubling past of anti-Israeli activity (so an anti-Paul vote for Obama is not the solution). I don’t know Trump’s position on Israel. He claims to be a steadfast supporter (his daughter also converted to Judaism), but, as with all other issues, I don’t take him on his word.April 27, 2011 11:10 pm at 11:10 pm #903375GumBallMember
Hey evryone do you think barack hussein Obama is gonna win For 2012??May 5, 2011 2:03 am at 2:03 am #903376
Correct. But zen3344 mentioned Allen West, not Mike Huckabee.
Also, relying on the Senate is playing with fire.May 5, 2011 5:40 am at 5:40 am #903377
Give Me a Break,
I was referring to:
The problem with Huckabee being a Florida resident is that if he runs with one of the Florida residents (I refer to Rubio and Bush – Scott isn’t well liked in FL), the Florida electors would not be allowed to vote for both of them, as per the Constitution.
A West/Rubio ticket is futlie.
If the GOP won’t nominate ‘Mama Grizzlies” such as Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell then it’s near certainty that they will capture the Senate (they might lose the House though).May 6, 2011 5:42 am at 5:42 am #903378
Tim Pawlenty Loses First GOP Debate
You can’t really declare a winner for the first Republican presidential debate (which took place today in South Carolina and was sponsored by Fox News). Only five of the declared candidates participated: Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Gary Johnson and Herman Cain. Pawlenty is the only serious candidate. The other contenders were only there to make the debate a carnival barker and a bit more interesting (Pawlenty alone would be disastrous). People didn’t tune in and is would have no effect on the voters.
Tim Pawlenty blew it. He had the opportunity to present himself to the public once more, and he failed again. Granted, he looked presidential and answered tough questions, but he didn’t exploit it to his benefit. “Mr. Nice-Guy” perhaps reiterated his Personality traits (they’re actually good, but not for a presidential candidate) and showed that he cannot engage in confrontations. His reluctance to berate Romneycare or to take a swipe at Huckabee proved once more that he is “too nice” to be president.
Nice guys finish last…May 6, 2011 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm #903379ronrsrMember
Charles Lindbergh / Father CoughlinMay 22, 2011 6:48 am at 6:48 am #903380May 22, 2011 4:22 pm at 4:22 pm #903381
Dave – Why go with Pawlenty? He is as famous as Huckabee. At least Huckabee had enough Sechel to give it up. The only one that has a chance to beat Romney is Gingrich. If Romney wins the GOP, he will lose to Obama. Centrist candidates can’t bring out the vote of the conservatives and Obama will win again. I do feel Gingrich has a chance against Obama. The conservatives will wake up and vote for him because they don’t want another 4 years of Obama, but they ain’t coming out in force for Romney!May 22, 2011 6:27 pm at 6:27 pm #903382
Pawlenty is less famous than Huckabee. If he would be as famous as Huckabee and connect better with voters, then he would’ve been my pick in place of Christie. His problem is that he doesn’t connect to voters.
Gingrich is a flip-flop, self-centered, no-chance choice. His record is murky with his gaffes and scandals. He simply has no self-control. The conservatives will be weary to vote for Gingrich as well. Pawlenty has a record he can run on. After all, he’s one of the only governors with an ‘A’ from Cato.May 22, 2011 6:51 pm at 6:51 pm #903383
Dave – Our Gov. (C.C.) says he isn’t running and I believe him. Even if Paw would be the most honest man in America, he still doesn’t stand a chance because he’s a no-name. If Gingrich gets back to the way he used to be as Speaker, I think the conservatives could fall behind him. But if it’s Romney, be prepared for another four years of Obama!May 23, 2011 12:50 pm at 12:50 pm #903384A Woman Outside BrooklynParticipant
Unfortunately, with all the names mentioned in this thread, there’s not one who could beat Obama if the election was held right now. By this point 4 years ago, it was clearly Hillary and Rudy as the frontrunners, so a lot can still happen. But my biggest concern is that the GOP has failed to come up with anyone who is a serious contentder, and that also has the ability to be a unifier. The idea of Obama has a lame duck is even scarier then Obama is this first term.May 31, 2011 3:23 am at 3:23 am #903385
I have chosen my dream ticket for 2012:
Former Florida governor John Ellis “Jeb” Bush for President
Head of CENTCOM David Howell Petraeus for Vice President
An idea I had, though admittedly highly unpopular, would be to put up a moderate third-party ticket of, say, Joe Lieberman and John McCain. This would make it more likely that no candidate would receive a majority of the Electoral College, which would throw it to the House of Representatives. Being that 31 of the House congressional delegations are GOP-held, the Republican would be elected.May 31, 2011 3:55 am at 3:55 am #903386
I think the only chance of the repubs winning is if they put up a staunch conservative. I don’t think anyone mentioned by you or anybody running is within that catergory. Maybe S. Palin, but the hypocritical media who loves women and minorities, made her look like a fool, which she can’t possibly reverse. They only like minorities and women who are libs. If you’re not a lib, then all this equality stuff goes out the window. Gingrich used to be that way, but I think he’s been out of politics too long and he’s a bit mellow. Yet, he still might turn himself around. My reasoning is because you see from the last election -if it’s between two guys in the middle, even though Obama really isn’t in the middle, the dems will win. The only chance for the repubs to win is if they pull out a conservative, so their conservative base will come out in droves to vote.June 28, 2011 2:56 am at 2:56 am #903387
I’ve pretty much settled on my choices.
1. Richard John “Rick” Santorum
2. Timothy James “Tim” Pawlenty
3. Herman Cain
4. Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich
For Vice President:
1. Eric Cantor
2. Allen West
Any opinions?June 28, 2011 3:13 am at 3:13 am #903388sheinMember
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.