Ship of Fools: Meet the next POTUS

Thread: Meet the next POTUS Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025272

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

It could be. [Smile]

quote:
Carson, the famous Johns Hopkins pediatric neurosurgeon, made a large splash last month with a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in which he criticized progressive taxation and President Obama's health care overhaul as the president sat just feet away.

Michel asked the physician what he thought of the reaction of conservative columnist Cal Thomas, a longtime prayer breakfast attendee, who called the speech's political nature inappropriate for an event with a 61-year tradition of non-partisanship. Thomas recommended that Carson apologize to Obama. When Michel asked Carson if he agreed, he said:

"I don't think so at all. In fact, I don't believe that expressing your opinion, regardless of who's there, is being rude. And it's a shame that we've reached a level in our country where we think that you don't have the right to put your opinion out there."

It will continue to be interesting to see how he handles the onslaught as black 'conservatives' remain fair game.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Is boorishness a requirement for political office?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Not gonna happen. We all love to hate politicians, but let's face it -- no one but a politician is going to weather the rigors of a presidential campaign.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

If she runs, the next POTUS will be Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
If she runs, the next POTUS will be Hillary Clinton.

from your lips to God's ears!

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
It could be.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
It will continue to be interesting to see how he handles the onslaught as black 'conservatives' remain fair game.

So far, not so well.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
If she runs, the next POTUS will be Hillary Clinton.

Warren! Warren!

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not gonna happen. We all love to hate politicians, but let's face it -- no one but a politician is going to weather the rigors of a presidential campaign.

Yeah but early on he appears to have some political blood coursing through his veins... and his life story leads you to believe he's not the type to be pushed around if he sets his mind against it.

I'd vote for him - we could do worse.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not gonna happen. We all love to hate politicians, but let's face it -- no one but a politician is going to weather the rigors of a presidential campaign.
Yeah but early on he appears to have some political blood coursing through his veins... and his life story leads you to believe he's not the type to be pushed around if he sets his mind against it.

I'd vote for him - we could do worse.

You could do worse than a man who quite literally does not understand the meaning of the word consent? (Because, veering into Dead Horse territory that is where you need to be to equate homosexuality with paedophilia or bestiality.) How? Voting for Hannibal Lector?

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
(Because, veering into Dead Horse territory that is where you need to be to equate homosexuality with paedophilia or bestiality.)

You're so cute when you're all worked up. [Yipee]

And maybe it's just where you think you need to be?

And not everybody has to go there?

He learned early on certain types don't allow you to use the words gay and bestiality in the same sentence and to my way of thinking handled the event with as much class it it warranted.

Feel free to rave on though. [Biased]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I agree, the next POTUS will be Elizabeth Warren. She knows how to speak truth to power

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/elizabeth-warren-banking-committee

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
He learned early on certain types don't allow you to use the words gay and bestiality in the same sentence

He's 61 years old, and he's just now learning that large numbers of people can be offended by likening homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality?

What other fascinating revelations do you suppose we'll see Ben Carlson experience in his journey into the late 20th century?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Do we have his birth certificate yet?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

moron:

quote:
He learned early on certain types don't allow you to use the words gay and bestiality in the same sentence and to my way of thinking handled the event with as much class it it warranted.

He had learned this "early on", therefore he deliberately used the comparison to insult gay people? So he's a public speaking troll, then?

Wotta guy. [Roll Eyes]

Oh, and since he is African American, let's see if he will be a shoo-in for POTUS. After all, according to some conservatives, Obama was only elected because he was African American.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
If she runs, the next POTUS will be Hillary Clinton.
Warren! Warren!

Clinton/Warren or Warren/Clinton-- either way, I'm a happy camper.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
[QUOTE]
He learned early on certain types don't allow you to use the words gay and bestiality in the same sentence and to my way of thinking handled the event with as much class it it warranted.

Call me crazy, but I would like to see someone who doesn't just "learn the rules to effective PR" but actually learns and understands why it is so wrong to use the two in the same sentence.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I agree, the next POTUS will be Elizabeth Warren. She knows how to speak truth to power

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/elizabeth-warren-banking-committee

That is precisely why she would have my vote. But also, perhaps, why I'll never get the chance to exercise that option.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Call me crazy, but I would like to see someone who doesn't just "learn the rules to effective PR" but actually learns and understands why it is so wrong to use the two in the same sentence.

I'd hazard a guess he's been too busy saving innumerable people's lives to worry all that much about how not to offend those who spend so much time looking to be offended (when they aren't working to redefine a word like 'marriage' for their own ends) but my hunch is he'll be a quick study.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I agree, the next POTUS will be Elizabeth Warren. She knows how to speak truth to power

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/elizabeth-warren-banking-committee

Hear hear Gramps49! The more I hear about her, the more I like her. I don't know if she actually can actually get it -- the power to whom she speaks truth to knows how to work lying to their advantage. But (keeping in mind that 2016 is a long way off) i can see myself doing my bit to get her elected.

Thank you Moron for starting this thread. Despite the utterly ridiculous (dare i say moronic in Purgatory?) premise of the OP, this thread may actually generate some interesting and intelligent speculation by shipmates.

[ 14. April 2013, 17:48: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Call me crazy, but I would like to see someone who doesn't just "learn the rules to effective PR" but actually learns and understands why it is so wrong to use the two in the same sentence.
I'd hazard a guess he's been too busy saving innumerable people's lives to worry all that much about how not to offend those who spend so much time looking to be offended (when they aren't working to redefine a word like 'marriage' for their own ends) but my hunch is he'll be a quick study.

*snif* is that sulfur I smell?

I fear there is just no way to respond to this in purgatory.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
If she runs, the next POTUS will be Hillary Clinton.
Warren! Warren!
Clinton/Warren or Warren/Clinton-- either way, I'm a happy camper.

That would be a politically intelligent ticket. A Dream Team to end all Dream Teams.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Sadly I doubt Warren/Clinton or vice versa is in the future. Can't see a two female ticket making it. One or the other of them though.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Oh, what a pity. You seem to have forgotten that there will also be Republican candidates in the way of the "Dream Team".

How surprising for these parts.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I don't think there's the slightest chance Ben Carson will even seriously run for the nomination, but if he does, it will be interesting from my perspective to see what happens when his religion is put in the harsh glare of the public view, as Mitt Romney's Mormonism was (to some extent). We've never seen a Seventh-day Adventist run for such high office in the US before and every word Ben Carson speaks is HUGE news in the Adventist blog-world and Facebook-world. Most of the SDAs I know are divided between those who share most of Carson's views and would be thrilled to see him run for office, and those who, like myself, are considerably to his left politically and are a little embarrassed by his sudden notoriety. I thought he was a good representative of our faith back when he was specializing in being an excellent surgeon who had overcome significant personal obstacles to achieve what he had in life. Since he's waded into the political mire ... not so much.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh, what a pity. You seem to have forgotten that there will also be Republican candidates in the way of the "Dream Team".

Which Republican would you like to see in the White House? They all seem either utterly uninspiring or totally off their trolley to me.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh, what a pity. You seem to have forgotten that there will also be Republican candidates in the way of the "Dream Team".
Which Republican would you like to see in the White House? They all seem either utterly uninspiring or totally off their trolley to me.

I think being completely off their trolley is a requirement.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I think being completely off their trolley is a requirement.

Let's see; last set of Republican POTUS candidates included . . .

Michelle (Vaccination-for-Human Papiloma-Virus-Causes-Mental-Retardation) Bachmann;

Rick (Let's-Use-The-Bible-for-Our-Constitution) Santorum;

Herman (9-9-9-Can-a-Self-Promotional-Book-Tour-be-Written-Off-My-Taxes-If-I-Pretend-It's-Really-a-Run-for-Office?) Cain;

Mitt (Look-We-All-Know-That-47%-of-Americans-Are-Worthless-Lazy-Slobs-So-Just-Ignore-Them) Romney;

and more.

Yep; Welease Woderwick is right again.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

Jon Huntsman seemed the most reasonable of the last bunch of Republican presidential candidates. He didn't get far.

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Oh, and since he is African American, let's see if he will be a shoo-in for POTUS. After all, according to some conservatives, Obama was only elected because he was African American.

Speaking as a resident of the deepest parts of the Deep South, as well as one who works in a nearly 100% African American environment, I can share that President Obama's race was THE primary reason most in the black community here voted for him. Discussions about it never got to the policy level. Ever. So while he may not have been elected because of his race, the President was decidedly voted for because of his race. Not saying it's a bad thing, just saying it is/was. I'm confident there were Caucasian and other Americans who voted for Pres. Obama because of his race, too, aren't you?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Jon Huntsman seemed the most reasonable of the last bunch of Republican presidential candidates. He didn't get far.

I suspect he had the wisdom not to run against a cast of clowns. Why beggar himself (to say nothing of expending vast stores of energy) and risk destroying his own dignity and credibility competing against a set of fools like the above?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

And surely some people voted against him because of his race too. The question is surely whether there is evidence that other bias was actually relevant to whether he won the election. I, for one, cannot answer that.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Oh, and since he is African American, let's see if he will be a shoo-in for POTUS. After all, according to some conservatives, Obama was only elected because he was African American.
Speaking as a resident of the deepest parts of the Deep South, as well as one who works in a nearly 100% African American environment, I can share that President Obama's race was THE primary reason most in the black community here voted for him. Discussions about it never got to the policy level. Ever. So while he may not have been elected because of his race, the President was decidedly voted for because of his race. Not saying it's a bad thing, just saying it is/was. I'm confident there were Caucasian and other Americans who voted for Pres. Obama because of his race, too, aren't you?

Yes, most Black people in the U.S. supported Obama because he is Black -- but that in no way means that most U.S. Black people will support someone JUST because he or she is Black. Droves of Black voters didn't swarm over to the Republican party to support Herman Cain, and in my experience Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is held in low esteem among many or most news-aware Black folks (quite rightly and logical IMHO)

Black folks are not stupid. They are not going to support someone who is clearly against their interests just because he is Black.

[ 15. April 2013, 15:58: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Oh, and since he is African American, let's see if he will be a shoo-in for POTUS. After all, according to some conservatives, Obama was only elected because he was African American.
Speaking as a resident of the deepest parts of the Deep South, as well as one who works in a nearly 100% African American environment, I can share that President Obama's race was THE primary reason most in the black community here voted for him. Discussions about it never got to the policy level. Ever. So while he may not have been elected because of his race, the President was decidedly voted for because of his race. Not saying it's a bad thing, just saying it is/was.

Did those same African Americans support Herman Cain's bid? If not (and I'm guessing not) that suggests there is more than complexion at play in their voting decisions.

Many of the discussions re: Obama's first term run centered on his race precisely because it was ground-breaking. For African-Americans in particular, it was a powerful moment. There was a lot of both hope and fear involved. That would naturally lead to a lot of race-based discussions. That does not mean that other factors, policy factors, didn't play a role in their decision, simply that the historicity of the moment was significant enough to dominate discussions.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I think you've nailed it, malik3000.

ETA: And you, cliffdweller.

[ 15. April 2013, 16:48: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Ben Carson is the Republican party's latest black friend, following in the tradition of Alan Keyes and Herman Cain. It's a good gig while it lasts, but Republicans seem very unwilling to actually vote for these candidates.

quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
Speaking as a resident of the deepest parts of the Deep South, as well as one who works in a nearly 100% African American environment, I can share that President Obama's race was THE primary reason most in the black community here voted for him. Discussions about it never got to the policy level. Ever. So while he may not have been elected because of his race, the President was decidedly voted for because of his race. Not saying it's a bad thing, just saying it is/was. I'm confident there were Caucasian and other Americans who voted for Pres. Obama because of his race, too, aren't you?

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
And surely some people voted against him because of his race too. The question is surely whether there is evidence that other bias was actually relevant to whether he won the election.

The basic premise of the Southern Strategy is that the votes picked up from white racists will outnumber the votes lost among racial minorities. The U.S. may have reached the point where this is no longer true.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
For African-Americans in particular, it was a powerful moment. There was a lot of both hope and fear involved. That would naturally lead to a lot of race-based discussions. That does not mean that other factors, policy factors, didn't play a role in their decision, simply that the historicity of the moment was significant enough to dominate discussions.

Someone once made the observation that you can find two pictures in every Irish-American home: 1) the pope and 2) John F. Kennedy. I suspect a similar dynamic at work with Obama among the African-American community.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Croesus:

quote:
Someone once made the observation that you can find two pictures in every Irish-American home: 1) the pope and 2) John F. Kennedy. I suspect a similar dynamic at work with Obama among the African-American community.

Maybe now it's Martin Luther King, Jr and Barack Obama for African Americans. [Cool]

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Did those same African Americans support Herman Cain's bid? If not (and I'm guessing not) that suggests there is more than complexion at play in their voting decisions.

Many of the discussions re: Obama's first term run centered on his race precisely because it was ground-breaking. For African-Americans in particular, it was a powerful moment. There was a lot of both hope and fear involved. That would naturally lead to a lot of race-based discussions. That does not mean that other factors, policy factors, didn't play a role in their decision, simply that the historicity of the moment was significant enough to dominate discussions.

At one point they may have, because apparently Cain led Obama in at least one 2011 Rasmussen poll. I've already said Obama wasn't elected on race alone. I've also said that conversations I enjoyed with my A-A colleagues never really reached the policy level. In general, there was usually too much elation re: his ethnicity to go much further. Just sharing my experience from the heart of MS.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
The Riv: Cain led Obama in at least one 2011 Rasmussen poll.

Isn't shat the same firm that predicted a resounding victory for Romney in november?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:
... apparently Cain led Obama in at least one 2011 Rasmussen poll.

The Rasmussen poll tends to be strongly biased in favor of Republicans.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
The Riv: Cain led Obama in at least one 2011 Rasmussen poll.
Isn't shat the same firm that predicted a resounding victory for Romney in november?

And, it's relevant to note, the more we found out about Cain's policies (or rather, lack thereof), the lower his poll #s dropped--rapidly so. So, while race may spur an initial bit of attn, it seems policy does matter after all.

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :

I wouldn't know how Rasmussen leans, RuthW -- perhaps you're right.

@ clifdweller: I think Cain's sex scandal allegations may have hurt his candidacy more than anything. I didn't pay that much attention to the Republican primaries, though, believeing a second term for Pres. Obama a foregone conclusion (as I would for former Sec. of State Clinton, should she run and get elected).

Even so, I cast no aspersions toward those who voted for Obama simply because of his race. It's as valid a reason for people nowadays as any other.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh, what a pity. You seem to have forgotten that there will also be Republican candidates in the way of the "Dream Team".

How surprising for these parts.

... what a strange statement, since we were obviously talking about a "Dream Team" for the Democratic ticket. Why the hell would there be a Republican on a Democratic ticket?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh, what a pity. You seem to have forgotten that there will also be Republican candidates in the way of the "Dream Team".

How surprising for these parts.
... what a strange statement, since we were obviously talking about a "Dream Team" for the Democratic ticket. Why the hell would there be a Republican on a Democratic ticket?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Riv:

@ clifdweller: I think Cain's sex scandal allegations may have hurt his candidacy more than anything.

Could be, but it seemed to me that even before that all came out, the more he talked, the more it became evident his entire economic/ domestic/ foreign affairs policy amounted to a single catchy slogan ("9-9-9!") the more his poll #s plummeted.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh, what a pity. You seem to have forgotten that there will also be Republican candidates in the way of the "Dream Team".

How surprising for these parts.
... what a strange statement, since we were obviously talking about a "Dream Team" for the Democratic ticket. Why the hell would there be a Republican on a Democratic ticket?

Unless you went for a government of national unity - but this seems unlikely ...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Unless you went for a government of national unity - but this seems unlikely ...

There's a reason the Twelfth Amendment was adopted.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Unless you went for a government of national unity - but this seems unlikely ...

We would need a Green Party adjunct just to serve as a tie-breaker.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Who will be the next President will have something to do with what condition the U.S. economy is in three years from now. The reassurances of Paul Krugman etc. (as much as I respect him) depend on the dollar's continuing to be the world's reserve currency. Various developments have been chipping away at this status. Many things are so weird that I suspect we are being officially lied to in a number of ways. Nothing makes the U.S. inherently immune to the kind of vicissitudes faced by Britain in the 1970s soon after sterling had been similarly deserted. If the dollar were to go south suddenly because we and our governments are not living within our means, the Tea Party would get a boost in credibility.

Planning to retire in a month and a half, I must very soon make a decision about the pension. Should I take a smaller monthly payment in return for a declining but guaranteed remainder payable to a beneficiary should I die within the next 14 years? Or should I opt for a significantly larger payout each month with no death benefit even if I keel over immediately?
One consideration, of course, is life expectancy. But another is the probable declining value of the dollar sometime within the next decade. In view of this threat, I have just about decided on the latter course, and investing the surplus in something with a better chance of retaining its value.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Is Chris Christie tainted too much with bi-partisanship to make him unelectable? The man seems to have a brain and the ability to get things done and some financial common sense. You'd think the Republican power brokers would be interested in at least exploring such an option.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

He's not photogenic, and has been seen to pal around with Obama. Get your priorities straight.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
He's not photogenic, and has been seen to pal around with Obama. Get your priorities straight.

bingo.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Obviously I'm not an American so my own knowledge is limited. But just like most shipite's I've never let that stop me from commenting, so...

How about Condoleeza Rice?

Maybe even Colin Powell? His age is probably against him, but a Powel/Rice ticket would have a certain appeal if both could be persuaded to run.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I was in Palestine in 2003, when the Middle East was feeling the full weight of the Bush administration upon them. I spoke with many Palestinians, and the only one they could be positive about was Powell. They literally said "he is not like the others."

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Obviously I'm not an American so my own knowledge is limited. But just like most shipite's I've never let that stop me from commenting, so...

How about Condoleeza Rice?

Maybe even Colin Powell? His age is probably against him, but a Powel/Rice ticket would have a certain appeal if both could be persuaded to run.

Powell has already previously (some years back) expressed a lack of interest in seeking high office. Don't know about Condoleeza's level of interest, but surely if she had any, last go-round should have drawn her out?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Don't know about Condoleeza's level of interest, but surely if she had any, last go-round should have drawn her out?

Last time around she was on record as a pretty firm "no." I don't expect that to change.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

If you're looking for a Republican candidate from an ethnic minority, Bobby Jindal might be your best chance. I don't think he'll stand, and I think he has even less chance of being selected as a presidential candidate.

Or there's Marco Rubio, if you count a white Cuban as an ethnic minority.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Dunno if that's directed my way, but I'm looking for possible Republican candidates only in the sense that, while I'm a Democrat, I do support a two-party* system -- something we currently seem not to have.

*And a two-party system would work better if our current President acted more like a member of the party he claims as political home instead of being a closet Republican himself.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

Maybe even Colin Powell? His age is probably against him, but a Powel/Rice ticket would have a certain appeal if both could be persuaded to run.

see comments re: Christie. Powell came out strongly and unlike Christie, explicitly, for Obama in both his runs, his endorsement may have been a major factor in 2008. To me that speaks to his reasonableness, his integrity, and his character. But to the GOP it's the one and only Unforgivable Sin. They'll accept all sorts of craziness (see Bachmann), racism, personal immorality (see Gingrich) and/or general stupidity, but any deflection from the Party Line is met with swift and resolute amputation from the party of (*cough*) freedom.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
see comments re: Christie. Powell came out strongly and unlike Christie, explicitly, for Obama in both his runs, his endorsement may have been a major factor in 2008. To me that speaks to his reasonableness, his integrity, and his character. But to the GOP it's the one and only Unforgivable Sin. They'll accept all sorts of craziness (see Bachmann), racism, personal immorality (see Gingrich) and/or general stupidity, but any deflection from the Party Line is met with swift and resolute amputation from the party of (*cough*) freedom.

Short version: you can't be the Republican nominee for president if you've endorsed the Democratic ticket in the last two elections.

This does not seem to be a wholly unreasonable standard to hold.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Short version: you can't be the Republican nominee for president if you've endorsed the Democratic ticket in the last two elections.

This does not seem to be a wholly unreasonable standard to hold.

Whereas it's perfectly reasonable to seriously consider endorsing serial philanderers, blowhard conspiracy theorists, and people whose grasp of basic general knowledge appears to have stalled early in grade three.

[ 17. April 2013, 14:57: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you're looking for a Republican candidate from an ethnic minority, Bobby Jindal might be your best chance. I don't think he'll stand, and I think he has even less chance of being selected as a presidential candidate.

Or there's Marco Rubio, if you count a white Cuban as an ethnic minority.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that Jindal will run given half a chance. He is very ambitious; in fact, one gripe Louisianans have with him (and they have a lot of gripes) is that he doesn't spend enough time minding the store. But he might not even be re-elected governor. If by some fluke he is elected President, I will look for another country to emigrate to.

Christie has made a few mistakes (most notable canceling the railroad tunnel into NYC) but I can't help half-liking the guy. He's my kind of curmudgeon. If a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth, he speaks his mind so habitually and bluntly that it would be almost impossible for any particular statement to stand out as a gaffe. But I don't suppose the Republicans are intelligent enough to give him a chance.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

As well as being intelligent, Colin Powell is much too morally decent for the Republicans to ever even consider him.

Condaleeza Rice is a fascinating character. As a major architect of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld foreign policy she is beyond the pale as far as i am concerned but she seems to have her own integrity. Aside from that, i couldn't see her running for president because i get the sense that she is a very private person who would not want to deal with the hurly-burly of electoral politics. She is very much an academic and professorial type of person.

As someone with some familiarity with Louisiana politics, Bobby Jindal is a clown IMHO. After Obama's first state of the union address in 2009 the Republicans chose him to make the Republican reply speech (undoubtedly because they wanted a brown person). He came across like such a goofy person in that speech that they haven't been pushing him since, or so it seems to me.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Is Chris Christie tainted too much with bi-partisanship to make him unelectable? The man seems to have a brain and the ability to get things done and some financial common sense. You'd think the Republican power brokers would be interested in at least exploring such an option.

At least one of the parties should.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
Condaleeza Rice is a fascinating character. As a major architect of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld foreign policy she is beyond the pale as far as i am concerned but she seems to have her own integrity. Aside from that, i couldn't see her running for president because i get the sense that she is a very private person who would not want to deal with the hurly-burly of electoral politics. She is very much an academic and professorial type of person.

Plus the attack ads practically write themselves. Being the National Security Adviser during one of the most stunning failures of American national security in recent history should count as political negative.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh, what a pity. You seem to have forgotten that there will also be Republican candidates in the way of the "Dream Team".

How surprising for these parts.

Not sure how much 'in the way' they will be... This rather reminded me of the observation I heard a couple of times during last year's US presidential election, that there are now 18 solidly 'blue' states, consistently voting Democrat for the last 20 years, that between them contain most of the electoral college votes needed to get over the line.

Whereas the solidly 'red' states are ones with small populations, and hence fewer college votes.

Electoral math means that the Republicans in their current form are becoming increasingly less likely to capture the White House (although they can do just fine in Congress). And it seems that the soul-searching that was going to happen after last year's election has come to naught, with debate on policy changes being stifled.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia.

Are they not still swing states?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Re Pennsylvania, that depends on whether you count the popular vote, or the results of Republican-Gerrymandered districts.

We do have a very right-wing governor (in sharp contrast to most of our Republican governors in the past), but he has become so unpopular that I doubt he will be re-elected.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Og: Thread Killer: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia.

Pennsylvania and Michigan have consistently voted Democrat in the last six presidential elections. I have the feeling that they are only called swing states when the media want to make the race seem closer than it really is.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia.

Are they not still swing states?

Michigan and Pennsylvania aren't, no.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

But if I were Republican, I would be much more concerned about the South-West. New Mexico and Nevada are already solidly blue, with Colorado closely behind. Within a generation I can see Arizona following suit, and maybe even Texas coming into play. If this happens, then the GOP is toast.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
*snif* is that sulfur I smell?

While I was achieving my BS in Psychology Dr. Nau (I nearly wore her out: as a devout Skinnerian she FINALLY exasperatedly admitted 'consciousness' was possible, if not likely [Killing me]

bless her heart - I still wonder how she dealt with all that).

Anyway, one of the things she said during her Abnormal Psychology class that resonated with me was if you are smelling things that aren't there you may very well have a brain tumor.

I know we can't dispense medical advice here so take it for what it's worth.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

ah, just when the sulfur smell was starting to wane, it boils right up again...

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

What the fuck, you two? Cut it out.

K.A.

Admin.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0