Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on June 28, 2009, 09:45:34 PM
-
Two of them definitely bit the dust.
For Republicans, a Narrowing List of Presidential Prospects
Nevada Sen. John Ensign's and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's extramarital affairs are the latest blow to the GOP as the Republican presidential herd thins fast -- leaving many to wonder who will lead the party in its attempt to reclaim the White House.
By Cristina Corbin
FOXNews.com
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The Grand Old Party's 2012 presidential pool isn't looking so grand these days.
Add Nevada Sen. John Ensign's and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's extramarital affairs to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's unconvincing TV speech and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's family dramas, and the Republican presidential herd is thinning fast -- leaving many to wonder who will lead the party in its attempt to reclaim the White House.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels are the names now being whispered in Republican circles as potential winners -- although observers admit political speculations can change overnight.
"It's way too early to be playing the name game," said Dana Perino, former White House press secretary for President George W. Bush.
"I believe it will be a governor," said Nick Ayers, executive director of the Republican Governors Association.
Ayers also stressed that it is far too early to make projections, but he said Pawlenty, Jindal and Romney are among the most promising prospects.
But, he added, "The list goes on and on."
Ayers said Republicans are well-positioned for a comeback in 2012, but focusing on a candidate short list now is "totally irrelevant to the rebuilding of the party."
He added that the nomination could very well go to someone with little name recognition.
"When George W. Bush got re-elected in 2004, Barack Obama was a state legislator," Ayers said.
Still, as Republicans continue to battle a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House as well as recent scandals within their own party, talk naturally falls to who will emerge as the GOP nominee.
Barbour's appearance in New Hampshire for a party fundraiser on Wednesday got some attention.
Barbour, who has replaced Sanford as chairman of the Republican Governor's Association, has been on a tour of New Hampshire and Iowa this week, the nation's first primary and caucuses states, and arguably a make-or-break destination for presidential candidates.
Barbour told FOX News he has "no plans to run for president" even as he warned: "never say never."
The Mississippi governor, who once served as Republican National Committee chairman, was elected to office in 2003 and re-elected in 2007. He was praised for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
But a would-be candidate also faces the prospect of a Romney run. The former Massachusetts governor has earned credit for his business credentials and budget management.
Romney, who worked as a CEO of a management consulting firm and co-founder of a private equity firm, has a formidable resume -- one some political observers say may be the best weapon for a party looking for a comeback.
Jindal, perceived by many as a rising star within the party, has also been named a possible choice. But the 37-year-old son of Indian immigrants was roundly criticized for what many perceived as a childish and weak televised response to Obama's address to the nation in February.
Daniels, 60, gained praise for his commencement speech at Butler University in Indianapolis, in which he blasted baby boomers as self-indulgent. The Indiana governor, who served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget under the Bush administration, also won a second term overwhelmingly in a state carried by Obama during the election.
In a May 2009 FOX News poll, the majority of respondents said former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would likely be the top contender -- followed by Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Palin.
Giuliani said in May he has not ruled out the possibility of launching a second bid for the presidency.
But as the GOP searches for its most promising candidate, the party will need to find someone who can address public perceptions of the party as intolerant and irrelevant, not to mention marred by politicians who on the one hand are caught up in extramarital affairs while on the other they preach of family values.
Insiders say the party need not be shaken by Ensign's and Sanford's recent confessions or a seemingly slim presidential list.
"The Sanford and Ensign stories are unfortunate, but they don't define Republican principles -- those are well-defined, and we need to focus on them: keeping the country safe, keeping the country capitalist and free, and keeping focused on solutions for energy and health care," said Perino.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/25/pub-gop-presidential-prospects/
-
i saw Mitt on Meet the press today. I think once he runs, we'll all realize how mediocre he was after all. "Absolutely!" about 15 times. "I've always backed getting out of Iraq!" and "I haven't given one thought to 2012 yet..." as his committee sets up Iowa groundwork lol...
Mitt is mediocre. not a star. And he was a very lib governor. The repubs - historically - will pick a 'real' republicans, a far leaning rightie in 2012, and might do well.
Barbour just set up camp in New hampshire and iowa, and took Sanford's spot. he's probably the best early runner who is active in the party right now. Sure, mitt and huck are doign tv, but Barbour is working in it.
-
Mitt Romney is mediocre because he said "absolutely" about 15 times in an interview?? Okay . . . .
-
If Joe Biden or other dem said 'absolutely' 15 times it would mean he 'really knew what he was talking about'!
-
Mitt Romney is right now the best choice. The only thing that really bothers me about him is that healthcare fiasco that he tried in Massechusettes. But above all else, Romney is a problem solver. And Im hoping that is the reason he suppports some little things that I dont like- such as ethanol subsidies. He supports them because he thinks he has to to win, and he feels that the costs of supporting them will be low enough so that he can become President to prevent bigger costs.
-
Mitt Romney is mediocre because he said "absolutely" about 15 times in an interview?? Okay . . . .
did you see him on meet the press?
he's the type of guy that jumps at the opportunity to commit to a position with no gray area. He just seems like an unpopular high school kid shouting "I'll eat TEN worms!".
I dunno, I think he'll do a fine job in 2012 against obama, and the country needs a financial guru at times like these. But his eagerness to please, his willingness to shout "I'll open TWO gitmos!" and anything else to suck up to the base...
He's just too much of a "mee too!" guy. I'm sure he'll do fine. But the reason a guy like mccain was able to win - despite all romney's $ - is that voters saw this.
Hey, you can romanticize the guy all you want. But he's just very non-geuine in interviews and polls. Voters decided that last time.
-
I disagree 240. Romney is probably the deserving front runner at this time. He's been out there for some time now and has proven himself knowledgeable and professional with good experience and a good family. I think Gingrich is the most qualified but don't think he'd run. Romney could hold is own with Obama...at least more than McCain did and the fact that Obama is a farther left democrat than many believed (those that didn't know his history...or didn't want to know) will help the candidate with opposing views in 2012.
-
did you see him on meet the press?
he's the type of guy that jumps at the opportunity to commit to a position with no gray area. He just seems like an unpopular high school kid shouting "I'll eat TEN worms!".
I dunno, I think he'll do a fine job in 2012 against obama, and the country needs a financial guru at times like these. But his eagerness to please, his willingness to shout "I'll open TWO gitmos!" and anything else to suck up to the base...
He's just too much of a "mee too!" guy. I'm sure he'll do fine. But the reason a guy like mccain was able to win - despite all romney's $ - is that voters saw this.
Hey, you can romanticize the guy all you want. But he's just very non-geuine in interviews and polls. Voters decided that last time.
RP 2012
-
Mitt got stomped in the primaries last year and his withdrawal speech was down right bizzaro
I doubt any of the current crop will be the Repub nominee in 2012
-
Romney? I guess we didn't learn jack shit.
-
Romney can be number two nationally, but he cannot be number one. The intolerance of his own party is the very thing that will prevent him from being their leader.
It’s interesting that he likes to brag about his stint as Massachusetts governor. He consistently assailed the state as too liberal, but it was the liberal/tolerant nature of MA citizens that made it possible for him to become governor there. Few other states would put someone of his profile in the governor’s mansion. By the way, he was deeply unpopular at the end of his term, and he most certainly could not have been reelected. He knew that and bailed. After all, he got want he wanted: "Governor" on his resume. His big claim to fame is healthcare in MA, but even many of his fans see it as less than successful.
I have watched him over the years—including Sunday’s Meet the Press--the GOP can do much better . . . if it wants to. Romney is a man of few convictions. Any opponent can defeat him by trotting out the videos of him during his debates with Ted Kennedy; many are available on youtube. ::)
-
I disagree 240. Romney is probably the deserving front runner at this time. He's been out there for some time now and has proven himself knowledgeable and professional with good experience and a good family. I think Gingrich is the most qualified but don't think he'd run. Romney could hold is own with Obama...at least more than McCain did and the fact that Obama is a farther left democrat than many believed (those that didn't know his history...or didn't want to know) will help the candidate with opposing views in 2012.
Romney should have won in 2008 by a mile. Rudy self-destructed, Mccain was fumbling and out of it 1 months before super tuesday, Thompson ended up being fairly dumb, huck was a weirdo.
He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with petty debates with Rudy where they called each other 'lib' for 90 minutes and argued over who loved Reagan more.
Hell, he could have said form minute one "I'm a great candidate, and so is Rudy. Pick me and I"ll select him as VP tomorrow". And we'd have president romney right now. instead, voters saw him as someone who really wasn't good with people, but they were still okay with him, until he opened his mouth. He's the perfect candidate on paper, looks, $, great story. But when he speaks, he doesn't connect with common man.
-
The guy who is the most qualified and would be the best president is Mitch Daniels.However,he is not the most qualifiied as a tv guy or dynamic candidate.I wish Paul Ryan was the guy,but hes too young and only a congressman.
One thing I dont agree with 240,its that Romney uses "absolutely " too often.Remember,240 thought Kennedy would be a rising star and EVERY sentance she uttered was followed with "you know".240 defended her as super smart even to this day.Obama,if he isnt using the teleprompter ,utters "hmmmmmm,ummmmmmm,uhhhhhhhh" over and over and over and over again,it doesnt seem to hurt him.McCain used that stupid "my friends" all the time.People have pet words they fall back on,it wont kill their chances of gaining higher office.
-
Yeah, seems like they all have their favorite word or phrase. Obama says "uhhh..." all the time without a written speech. Its is somewhat bothersome.
Perhaps Romney's problem lies in his past performance in Mass. I know him from campaigning for president and he seems pretty good. Definitely does not come across as liberal post-election. I agree, Rudy could be a good VP...but not president (he does something weird with his eyes...they all have quirks).
Deicide, I'd love R.P to run again but my guess is that he will pass that torch to his son Rand. Ron's general ideas are what is popular, he doesn't have the best personal presence to be president.
-
did you see him on meet the press?
he's the type of guy that jumps at the opportunity to commit to a position with no gray area. He just seems like an unpopular high school kid shouting "I'll eat TEN worms!".
I dunno, I think he'll do a fine job in 2012 against obama, and the country needs a financial guru at times like these. But his eagerness to please, his willingness to shout "I'll open TWO gitmos!" and anything else to suck up to the base...
He's just too much of a "mee too!" guy. I'm sure he'll do fine. But the reason a guy like mccain was able to win - despite all romney's $ - is that voters saw this.
Hey, you can romanticize the guy all you want. But he's just very non-geuine in interviews and polls. Voters decided that last time.
No I didn't see the interview. Even if I had, I doubt I would have made a judgment about him being a viable candidate based on his overuse of the word "absolutely."
Romney has already been a successful governor, so he doesn't have to prove he can be a leader. Whether he can be the 2012 nominee remains to be seen.
-
I plan on voting for whoever runs against Obama in 2012.
-
I plan on voting for whoever runs against Obama in 2012.
That's pretty much what I did this past election.
But I will say this: if Obama is right about the stimulus, helps turn the economy around, and does a good job as CIC, then I'll probably vote for him in 2012. At this rate I really don't see that happening, but you never know.
-
That's pretty much what I did this past election.
But I will say this: if Obama is right about the stimulus, helps turn the economy around, and does a good job as CIC, then I'll probably vote for him in 2012. At this rate I really don't see that happening, but you never know.
WTF is wrong with you?
STIMULUS???? - - already a failure by Obama's own definition.
The Economy??? - dude read a freaking economics book. There is not going to be a recovery due to what he is doing.
Taking over Health Care & Cap & Trade????
Taxes on health benefits. Giving more power to the Federal Reserve????
-
WTF is wrong with you?
STIMULUS???? - - already a failure by Obama's own definition.
The Economy??? - dude read a freaking economics book. There is not going to be a recovery due to what he is doing.
Taking over Health Care & Cap & Trade????
Taxes on health benefits. Giving more power to the Federal Reserve????
More economists agree WITH Obama than against him in regards to what he's done.
How are you more knowledgeable on the economy than a whole team of smart economy mofos?
Seriously, I'd like to know how YOU know it's not going to work... Can I see the figures? We've definitely stabilized... Whether that's because of the Obama economic stimulus and ideas is debatable, but the economy is definitely more stable than it was 9-10 months ago.
-
WTF is wrong with you?
STIMULUS???? - - already a failure by Obama's own definition.
The Economy??? - dude read a freaking economics book. There is not going to be a recovery due to what he is doing.
Taking over Health Care & Cap & Trade????
Taxes on health benefits. Giving more power to the Federal Reserve????
Unlikely as it is, what if there is a turnaround on his watch?
I doubt it happens, but if he actually does a good job he will have earned the right to a second term. Like I said, I doubt it happens, but I'm at least leaving the door open to that possibility.
-
There will be some improvement based on the cycles of the economy, it is a question of when and what is the new baseline. Big govenment/anti-business programs are unlikely to support massive growth in the economy. As far as stabilization tu, not really. Things are only slightly better than last fall, including the stock market. Unemployment is much worse. Consumer spending is only up slightly. Then we have to weigh all the stimulus and big gov spending and see if that made enough of a difference to double our national debt. You need a huge improvement to say all this spending was worth it. We have to look at everything thats going on, including things like cap & trade, nationalized healthcare, excise and other tax increases, increasing gov regulation on business, immigration and foreign policies.
So far, I think the Obama administration is too far left and are spending us to death. We don't want to make the mistakes England and much of Europe made...they have even warned us! People in this country valued personal freedom above all else, thats what made our country great.
-
As far as agreeing with Obama, most economists and business experts think Obama's cap and trade is a bad idea from an economic standpoint alone.
-
More economists agree WITH Obama than against him in regards to what he's done.
How are you more knowledgeable on the economy than a whole team of smart economy mofos?
Seriously, I'd like to know how YOU know it's not going to work... Can I see the figures? We've definitely stabilized... Whether that's because of the Obama economic stimulus and ideas is debatable, but the economy is definitely more stable than it was 9-10 months ago.
Utter nonsense. How do I know it is not going to work:
1. What he is doing has never worked in the recorded history of nations. Please cite me one example where a nation doubled its money supply in such a short period of time to bail out failed businesses and grow govt resulting in an improvement of the private sector? You cant tax and spend your way to prosperity with fiat money not backed by anything. Its sheer madness.
2. By his own definition the Stimulus is alrteady a failure, or he lied, or both. He said without the Stim Bill UE would go to 8.8%. The UE is going to at least 10% officially. Who is going to hire all these people when businesses are faced with hire taxes and costs just to stay in business?
3. You can not spend phoney money off a printing press to get economic recovery. Germany tried this in the 1930's and look where that led. TU, you really need to read about this and why Gold and Silver has made such a comeback. Why do you think China is buying Gold at such a feaverish pace?. Its because we are being reckless with the printing press and not doing what is needed to make sound fundamental change. Obama is doing the opposite and making changes that ensure failure and permanent recession/depression.
4. We have a consumer based economy, not a production based economy. Everything Obama and the state govts are doing is taking more money out of the hands of consumers and into either tax increases or inflated commodity prices due to inflation and investors fleeing the dollar for metals, oil, etc. Additionally, many people are wary about taking out loans and credit to finance big purchases.
5. The "Boom" of the late 1990's early 2000's was fueld by cheap housing $$$$. It supplied 47% of the employment, most of the consumption (Home Equity Loans), and is no longer available to fuel a recovery. This will keep UE at 10% for some time.
6. Obama's admn is telling MFG compaines to drop dead through Cap & Trade, Tax increases on monies earned overseas. etc. This is going to cause many companies to leave. Even Dell said this was almost a deal breaker for them. Additionally, Card Check, which hopefully is DOA, will cause more job losses.
7. Interest Rates are going to be raised. We have had artificially low interest rates for some time and they will have to be raised to combat coming inflation due to all the money floating around that has been printed. None of this money has made its way to the consumer, but to bailouts, govt agencies etc. This will cause home prices to decrease and loans harder to come by.
Do you want more????
There is not going to be a recovery. There is stabilization, but this wil be a L Shaped situation.
-
if Obama is right about the stimulus, helps turn the economy around, and does a good job as CIC, then I'll probably vote for him in 2012.
:o
-
More economists agree WITH Obama than against him in regards to what he's done.
How are you more knowledgeable on the economy than a whole team of smart economy mofos?
Seriously, I'd like to know how YOU know it's not going to work... Can I see the figures? We've definitely stabilized... Whether that's because of the Obama economic stimulus and ideas is debatable, but the economy is definitely more stable than it was 9-10 months ago.
I havent seen ONE economist who thinks taking over the auto industry was a good idea.I havent seen one who thinks the way they allocated the money for the stimulous was a good idea.Havent seen one who thinks the government firing CEOs is a good idea.Havent seen ONE who thinks cap and trade is a good idea.Very few who think the government taking over health care is a good idea.
-
More economists agree WITH Obama than against him in regards to what he's done.
How are you more knowledgeable on the economy than a whole team of smart economy mofos?
Seriously, I'd like to know how YOU know it's not going to work... Can I see the figures? We've definitely stabilized... Whether that's because of the Obama economic stimulus and ideas is debatable, but the economy is definitely more stable than it was 9-10 months ago.
Take a look at this chart. (Click on it even if you see a frog. I think you will still see the chart when it enlarges). If you look at the time between November and the beginning of February, things look like they had already stabilized before the end of January. Now look at February. What the hell is that???? How do you explain that? There were no major pieces of bad news coming out of the financial markets at that time. Atleast not big enough to warrant a 22% drop in the stock market. The only major pieces of bad news were coming out of Washington. There was a second crash. Let's stop with the fantasy that Barack Obama stabilized the market.
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8349/grapt.th.png) (http://img31.imageshack.us/i/grapt.png/)
And to add what 333386 said, stimulus has never worked. It didnt work in the 60s and 70s, it didnt work a year ago when Bush tried it, and it isnt going to work now.