July 15, 2010

Obama in 2012?

"He trails Mitt Romney 46-43, Mike Huckabee 47-45, Newt Gingrich 46-45, and is even tied with Sarah Palin at 46.... It's not that any of the Republican candidates are particularly well liked. Only Huckabee has positive favorability numbers at 37/28. Romney's at 32/33, Gingrich at 32/42, Palin at 37/52... But with a majority of Americans now disapproving of Obama it's no surprise that a large chunk of them would replace him as President if they had that choice today."

I still think that once the race gets going and people really look at, say, Romney right next to Obama — really picture the other guy as President — the eagerness to oust Obama will cool off.

276 comments:

1 – 200 of 276   Newer›   Newest»
danielle said...

Obama will win in 2012. and Hillary will be his VP.

Hoosier Daddy said...

If unemployment is still sitting at present numbers, Bristol Palin will be able to beat Obama.

Quayle said...

Obama has created absolute hash with everything he's touched, and he simply isn't going to be able to talk it into looking like a wedding cake.

Sorry danielle, but the bloom is off the paper rose.

Peano said...

"I still think that once the race gets going and people really look at, say, Romney right next to Obama ...."

Once the race gets going.

Dangerous ambiguity there.

Paddy O said...

Imagine how he'd compare with someone who actually has kept a job in political leadership.

traditionalguy said...

The images of a powerful and privileged white man next to the noble black man fighting against racism still favors Obama. But put him next to a white female that can shoot all the available ammunition without triggering a sympathy a backlash, and then Obama's communist idealism shows right through.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I was watching John Harris from Politico this morning on Morning Joe just trying to figure out how Obama's popularity is sliding considering he's passed such 'landmark legislation'.

I think Harris like Obama must have been deaf to the uproar over the legislation and it being probably the main reason the Dems will lose the House and quite possibly the Senate.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Imagine how he'd compare with someone who actually has kept a job in political leadership.

Or had a job period.

danielle said...

...paddy o, guess that rules out Palin !

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Please GOD!!!! Not Romney. Not Huckabee. NOT Jindal.

When will the Republicans ever learn to stop serving up cold hash.

When will they ever learn that when the Main Stream Media picks the Republican candidate, as they did with McCain, they are purposely picking a loser.

The MSM is doing its level best to try to cram these guaranteed losers into the forefront of the political scene in the hopes that the Republicans will be stupid enough to pick them.....again.

Please GOD. Let the Republicans wise up and grow some balls.

Ben (The Tiger in Exile) said...

I thought you liked Mitt, Althouse...

Me, I'm for Sarah.

Hoosier Daddy said...

When will they ever learn that when the Main Stream Media picks the Republican candidate, as they did with McCain, they are purposely picking a loser.

I don't know DBQ, I'll argue that the MSM picked McCain because they knew Romney would probably beat The One and when you consider that Obama won by about the same margin as Bush 41, I'll stand by that.

Shawn L. said...

No word about a Democratic challenger?

A rematch w/ Hillary is likely if the D's have huge losses this November.

MadisonMan said...

Such polls are so important. We all know of polls in 2006 that had Obama winning the Presidency.

A.W. said...

Its sad. so much racism.

(yes, i am joking. but expect to hear people say that in seriousness when Obama is a one-termer.)

A.W. said...

Quayle:

> Obama has created absolute hash with everything he's touched,

He's sort of like King Midas, only substitute gold with feces.

Roger J. said...

Too much can happen between now and the next presidential election--incumbents it seems to me have an inherent advantage--now what if Mr Obama has a democratic challenger (a la Kennedy-Carter) what does that do to the race (oop presidential race not skin color)--I would not count the Clinton's out yet. And the republicans? they seem to be more inept than the presidential incumbent--In a year plus, I think we will know more. Ms Palin? high F(q)--which is always good.

TosaGuy said...

Overall numbers don't matter, it's where those voters are located. All the GOP needs to do is win the states Bush won in 2000 and 2004 and that is not that hard.

States that Obama won in 2008 and probably has already lost or will have to fight really hard in: IN, NC, NV, CO, OH, FL, VA, NM...as well as the single cong. district he won in NE. Such a shift makes it 279 GOP vs. 259 Obama.

There are 11 more votes in IA and NH...which flip flop around.

Another point to ponder...the nation will be redistricted by then with more electoral votes leaving the northeast and midwest and heading south and southwest.

Obama's sizable electoral college win is a one-time mirage.

Joe said...

Let me beat HD, if I can....

Hillbilly Ya'betcha!

Palladian said...

Everyone mentioned in that link deserves to lose, beginning with the already-failed President Obama.

The Republican losers are like a bunch of bad pennies. If the Republicans push someone like Romney or Palin or worst of all, Huckleberry, then they deserve to lose, forever.

The Republicans better understand that the next two national elections are their last two chances to save us from the repugnant and criminal Democratic party and the incompetent and probably intentionally malignant Obama administration, and their last two chances to save themselves as a viable political party.

If they screw the pooch this time, game over for the GOP.

Chase said...

. . . people really look at, say, Romney right next to Obama — really picture the other guy as President — the eagerness to oust Obama will cool off.


Why do you believe that?

Roger J. said...

Palladian said what I impled in much more pungent prose--well said sir.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'll argue that the MSM picked McCain because they knew Romney would probably beat The One

They would have been just has happy with Romney because they knew that they could beat up on his Mormon religion with impunity (you see it is OK to be bigoted against Mormons)and they could paint him as the ultimate white bread white guy with a stick up his butt. Out of touch, rich, elite all the bells and whistles where there for the MSM to do a hatchet job.

They liked senile old McCain because they knew that conservatives held him in contempt for being a prima dona, turn coat, cross the isles, democrat light traitor to conservative principles. The conservatives will never forgive him for McCain Feingold and McAmnesty. He's changed his tune on the amnesty thing since it is now apparant that the public is absolutely against it.

It was only the addition of Palin the brought out some votes that would otherwise have been on the sidelines.

The MSM was floored and panicked by Palin because she came out of left field and the had to rapidly counter attack where they could. By denigrating her as a woman, making fun of her accent, cheap shots at her family, accusing them of being trailer trash and so on and so on. They marshalled their entire arsenal against her, just as they did against Hillary.

Hillary would have easily won the general election and frankly I think she DID win the nomination, but was screwed out of it by the Chicago style politics and the corrupt caucus process.

The MSM is not in the least bit disinterested or impartial. They are actively trying to pick/foist upon the Republican party the very worst candidate that they can by highlighting losers like Romney and Huckabee and denigrating, insulting, demeaning possible winning candidates.

VW: fatio. Some how this seems apropos because I really really like Chris Christie as a possiblity.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Palladian said what I impled in much more pungent prose--well said sir.

Ditto

Christy said...

DBQ, I'm curious. Why not Jinal?

How about Christie? DeMint?

Speculation may be a waste this far out, but it is fun.

Roger J. said...

Governors Christie and Barbour have both done very well as executives--I doubt the republic will elect a governor with a southern drawl again, so that leaves Gov Christie as a potential front runner--the man has done extraordinarily well moving NJ in a solvent direction.

Roger J. said...

Damn--a ditto from DBQ--my ship has come in!

Kirstin said...

As 2012 approaches, Obama will find more time to worship in church and discuss his deep Christian faith.

I think there are lots of people in the "won't be fooled again" category. Maybe not enough, though.

Old RPM Daddy said...

Fun as it may be, it's pointless to prognosticate about 2012 from current polls. Even in the unlikely event the GOP wins both houses this fall, President Obama could still be reelected, just as Clinton was in 1996.

Palladian said...

"Why do you believe that?"

Because Obama's just so cool! He parties with Beyonce! Who wants some white fuddy-duddy when you can have a celebrity playing President?

America has been bred and nurtured into brainless cretinism over the last 40 years or so. Obama is the perfect leader for such a people. He won the election on absolutely nothing except a bunch of forgettable blather and a completely fabricated image. And he can do it again. The mass-media narrative cannot include complexity. It just needs a "cool" face, and an old, white "establishment" type to play it against.

Roger J. said...

My suspicion is that this may be the election cycle that make the current republican party the whig party of the mid 19th century--time will tell, but I am not optimistic.

Meade said...

Two words:

Mitch

Daniels

Lincolntf said...

As of today Romney is absolutely the most viable candidate for 2012. He's done in the private sector exactly what we need done on a national scale. Social issues, lack of purity, etc. are always going to be an issue with the Repub. candidate. He was rescuing/running The Olympics while Obama was hustling and conniving in the South Side. I'll take their head-to-head match up any day.

Meade said...

Overheard campaign slogan idea for Mitch Daniels:

"Mitch Daniels: Hey! What's Wrong With Him?"

Chris said...

They need to keep Christie in New Jersey. He's the only one with enough fortitude to can clean up that mess. He needs more time to finish the job. I don't see any Republicans on the horizon who look very promising at this point. God, who would want to be president now?!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

, I'm curious. Why not Jinal?

Too much baggage. He has some unique religous beliefs besides being Catholic. It is also very OK to be bigoted against Catholics too, you know.

Also, we will get to hear all the crappola from birthers on the other side of the political divide about Jindal not being a citizens..ad nauseum.

Plus....he isn't really 'black' like Obama, but rather a minority that consists of successful, educated, industrious, people who aren't dependent on the largess of the Democrat/Liberals for survival. They will whip up, covertly of course, racism against him and try to put a racial wedge between Jindal and the blacks and hispanics using the immigration issue.
Jindal is a good guy, but he comes across as a goofy geeky wimp. The MSM will make mincemeat out of him with the majority of the population who are mostly brain dead and get their political information from comic books, People magazine and late night television comedians.

They will believe anything they hear and you can bet that they will derail the message that needs to be sent by the Republicans with trivialities.

The message being, smaller government, lower taxes, less intrusive federal government, lower the deficit for crying out loud. QUIT SPENDING SO MUCH.

DADvocate said...

I can see Romney winning but I'd like a fresher face.

Beta Rube said...

I'm getting a serious man crush on Christie.

I just wonder if his side could claim "obesism" or some such whenever he was criticized.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Roger J: Too much can happen between now and the next presidential election--incumbents it seems to me have an inherent advantage

Typically yes they do but consider Bush 41 came off a high approval following the Gulf War (I) and was tossed to the curb almost solely because of the economy.

And the republicans? they seem to be more inept than the presidential incumbent-

I don’t know Roger, I would not call Romney or Huckabee inept, I think both have some pretty good ideas on the economy but unfortunately they don’t resonate on a charismatic scale with the electorate (although I think such superficial traits will be absent if unemployment still sucks). As for the sitting leadership, I agree. Replacing McConnell and Boner with say, Pence and DeMint would be a damn good start.
Tosa:

States that Obama won in 2008 and probably has already lost or will have to fight really hard in:

Good point. I can safely say he won’t carry Hoosierland again.

Obama's sizable electoral college win is a one-time mirage.

I wouldn’t even call it sizable compared to say, Bush 41 or the two Clinton terms which were accorded 426, 370 and 379 EC votes respectively. Considering the absolute media gala, mass rallies, national mood and going up against ‘my friend’ McCain, I was expecting Reaganesque landslide numbers.

Synova said...

There is a reason that incumbents almost always win. In 2004 there were any number of people who would gladly have voted against Bush if they were presented a reasonable opportunity to do so. Yet Bush still won... likely because enough people thought it too great a risk to take with the Iraq war such a huge issue.

In 2006 we were more settled, though still at war.

In 2008 we felt more comfortable, like it was winding down.

Obama could well win in 2012 but it will depend on if we actually do have a recovery and people feel secure. Better the devil we know than someone new who will have to grow into the presidency.

It will depend on events.

Roger J. said...

you know Hossier--its damn hard to argue with you :)

Palladian said...

And Palin has, like it or not, been neutralized. The narrative-creators in the media industry created her negative narrative just like they did Obama's positive one. And it's a very difficult thing (probably impossible actually) to try to change.

I don't have any particular animus against Palin, and I think she'd be a hell of a lot better of an executive than Obama. But that's not enough. I think too many Palin supporters are smitten with Palin as an image, in almost exactly the same way people were smitten with Obama as an image. I want supreme competence, intelligence and seriousness in a chief executive, not just someone who looks good, or looks like you think they should look, or looks like you think other people want them to look.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my previous comment, I think it's not possible for those positive qualities to win elections any longer.

We turned from a nation of adults into a nation of teenagers. And teenagers are not a demographic known for rational decisions.

Big Mike said...

I still think that once the race gets going and people really look at, say, Romney right next to Obama — really picture the other guy as President — the eagerness to oust Obama will cool off.

I agree with Palladian that none of the people mentioned ought to be anywhere near the ballot in 2012 (though barring something such as happened to LBJ in '68 it figures that Obama will, unfortunately, still be heading the Democrat ticket).

I predict that the Republican nominee will be a current member of the "can do" crop of governors. He or she will have to figure out not just how to win the nomination, and for obvious reasons he or she will keep a low profile as long as possible. Afterwards the electoral college favors Republicans, as has also been noted above.

Christie is a possibility, as are Barbour and Pawlenty. I don't think it's going to be Jindal, but he'll have a role in the next Republican administration, I'm sure.

Joe said...


I'll take their head-to-head match up any day.


I agree...let's try one word:
ROMNEYCARE

Yes, Romneycare and the stands he took whilst running against Kennedy and for the MA Governorship...Pr0-Choice, pro-Gay...I'm sure all that will play MAH-velously with the "base."

Sure he can either be pro-choice OR a flip-flopper....I don't think being a Mormon is going to hurt Romney nearly as much as Romney hurts Romney...he's a Republican, from Massachusetts. Like John Kerry that puts him to the LEFT of his median voter...he's going to have to move right, i.e., flip-flop and I don't think it's going to fly.

Still it's too early to make any predictions about who will WIN the GOP nomination...but I'm pretty certain it won't be Huckabee or Newt (Note: that's not saying who WILL be, that's saying who WON'T BE, and there's a difference.)

Roger J. said...

and lets assume I spelled hoosier right--Palladian for head of the RNC

RuyDiaz said...

"I still think that once the race gets going and people really look at, say, Romney right next to Obama — really picture the other guy as President — the eagerness to oust Obama will cool off."

Essentially agree. That is why I'd go with somebody very different from Obama. If you are going to lose the picture, you may as well go for the minority that identifies with your candidate for their own quirky reasons. This says to me 'Palin' or 'Gingrich', rather than the other options.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Better the devil we know than someone new who will have to grow into the presidency.


At least, by now, we are pretty sure where the Devil is coming from and what he stands for. At least we could make some plans.

But why vote for the lesser evil, how much worse can it get?

Cthulhu for President

Roger J. said...

and lets assume I spelled hoosier right--Palladian for head of the RNC

Palladian said...

"Palladian for head of the RNC"

Nah, I hate politics, and I'm a degenerate beatnik queer. I'd need a ringer.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Two words:

Mitch

Daniels


Speaking from personal experience I second Meade’s suggestion. Daniels utterly destroyed Thompson in the last election (I call an 18 point margin ‘destroyed) and other than from the far left Birkenstock granola crunchers, he enjoys immense popularity here. We’re probably one of the few states that isn’t teetering on the brink of insolvency. The drawback is that Daniels is a policy wonk and there is that charisma factor although as I said earlier, that might mean zippo if we’re still sitting at high unemployment.

Roger J. said...

Palliadian--queers are OK--and you think--which is a damn sight better than the RNC

Hoosier Daddy said...

you know Hossier--its damn hard to argue with you :)

Mrs. Hoosier would disagree ;-)

Lincolntf said...

Joe, I lived in MA during the entire health care debate (which lasted about 15 years). What exactly should Romney have done when the 75-85% Democrat Legislature overrode his vetoes? They also publicly debated and declared exactly what they would and would not override throughout the process. The held ALL the cards, as well as having the (misinformed) populace on their side the whole way.
Should Mitt have just disbanded the Legislature like a good dictator?
No, he's not Reagan. But he's a hell of a lot more proven, competent, and intelligent than the flavors-of-the-week who keep popping up.

Geoff Matthews said...

I'd like to see Christie get more experience governing NJ before he runs (but I like what he's done so far). Same with Jingal. I don't want someone who has a sliver of experience (sorry Sarah, but that means you). After all, that's what Obama did, and it's obvious that his lack of managerial experience is a problem.

I think that Gingrich is smart (the contract with america was monumental), but the guy, morally, is slime. That will turn off too many people.

lemondog said...

Isn't Romneycare a mess?

How about somebody with heft outside the abominable political class.

Business, military.

Academics need not apply!

Joe said...

No Lincoln he ought to have VETOED it and let them over-ride him...so is Obamacare a bad idea, because of the mandate and the failure to contain costs? What you mean just like ROMNEYCARE? Anything "we" say about Obamacare can be tossed right back at Romney, and pleae note Obama's "posse" is talking up the example thta Romneycare gave them...

And, IIRC, Romney has clamimed RomneyCare as excample of his good governance...

MadisonMan said...

The difficulty with Mitch Daniels? He's not on the East Coast where the media centers squat, and he's not dealing with Hurricanes or Oil Spills. Sort of like Tom Vilsack.

I think he'd be worth considering.

Original Mike said...

I would vote for Romney only under extreme duress, due to RomneyCare. Of course Obama on the other side of the ballot would constitute extreme duress.

My choice, at this early stage would be Daniels.

A.W. said...

Sy

Are you saying that if the economy is still cratering, that people will want more obama just because he is a known quantity?

if so, gotta disagree. i think most people think Obama is making the economy. only 13% in a recent poll said obama was helping them. as a rule of thumb, if there is a recession, the incumbant president loses. that goes double if the people are convinced the incumbant is actually making it worse. and i thin most americans believe he is.

That being said romney will be a very tough sell unless he turns completely agaisnt obamacare, and promises not to replace it with anything like romneycare.

Old Dad said...

Repubs have some fanastic Governors--Daniels, Jindal, Pawlenty, Christie. Don't know if they're ready for the clown show in DC, but they sure as hell are great executives.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Palin is damaged goods or neutralized as Palladian said. I see her more as a 'rainmaker': getting the votes and helping to position conservative and moderate candidates that can win.

Gingrich while being an extremely intelligent and articulate man, is too divisive and I frankly don't want to hear anymore about his dying wife and his pecadillos.

The Repubs would do good to nominate a Governor who has shown the ability to govern, reduce spending, fiscal responsibility, strong stance on LEGAL immigration and leave the social conservative issues on the sidelines.

In fact, the MSM is the entity that is always trying to bring up those issues and use them as a dividing wedge. The majority of the country may have feelings about social issues, but right now, the focus of government should be on fiscal and international issues. The rest are distractions and flak thrown up by the Democrats to divide people.

Original Mike said...

"The drawback is that Daniels is a policy wonk and there is that charisma factor although as I said earlier, that might mean zippo if we’re still sitting at high unemployment."

If the economy is a mess, which I think is pretty damn likely, lack of charisma will be a virtue. The country will be looking for somebody serious, not cool. Hell, Althouse might even be able to resist the cool this time.

Roger J. said...

Sy--agree with your analysis--I think much will depend if there is a democrat challenger to Mr Obama--do the republicans have a chance-I think so if they drop their foolish opposition to gay rights, abortion and social issues--this election IMO will depend on the economy and secondarily on national security--and in both of those, Mr Obama has proved incompetent

Stan Smith said...

Christie/Ryan 2012

wv: grookbil — what "health care reform" turned out to be...

Peter V. Bella said...

It all depends on how bad things get before the campaign season starts. If things go from worse to worst Bozo the Clown would look better than Obama.

Joe said...

Daniels hurt himself with the base, two ways:
1) The proposed "truce" on social issues:
a. It said, “Social conservatives, back of the bus, please. We want you votes, but you get little in return. Sit down and shut up.” And that unlike the Left, we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, i.e., pass several portions of an agenda, but could only pass one thing at a time; and
b. It was predicated upon the belief that IF we did this “truce” Democrats would be more likely to cooperate with the GOP on its agenda. Laughably false on its face.
2) And then by backing away from the idea within a few days. IF, the truce was such a great idea why run away from it so quickly? It made Daniels appear squishy.

Cedarford said...

AA - "I still think that once the race gets going and people really look at, say, Romney right next to Obama — really picture the other guy as President — the eagerness to oust Obama will cool off."

I think you are wrong.

Obama is less than halfway into his Presidency and has already convinced 55% of the country he is a crypto-socialist. 68% don't have confidence in his judgement.

If he is like Bush in 2 years, with most convinced he is a Carteresque Failed President - then almost anyone put up against the "Boy Perfessor" will prevail if people think they are experienced and competent.

If the Dems have a bloodbath in under 4 months - to stave off more damage to their Party - look for internal challenges to a standing President - not limited to Hillary.

Mark said...

Romney is a non-starter because his name is part of "Romney-care".

Jindal will have the most leverage re: Obama failures with concrete consequences. His religiosity bothers me, but whatchoogonnado?

Lincolntf said...

Because Joe, as you would know if you actually gave a crap about "Romneycare", it wasn't just a single item called "Romneycare". That's a term made up by people who need buzzwords to remind them what to think.
Gov. Romney vetoed at least a dozen of the onerous amendments/additions that the Legislature used to make it into the disaster that it is. All the vetoes were overridden. Exactly as the Leg. Leadership said they would be. And again, the dumbass MA people were demanding it, so he had very little standing to overturn the crap to begin with. The fact that he makes political hay as a wishy-washy moderate annoys me, but I still trust him (particularly with the economy, but also to be a realist on Nat'l Defense) more than the other guys.

Roger J. said...

Damn--I agree entirely with C4 and progressive jews arent even involved

Original Mike said...

Sorry Lincolntf, but I've heard Romney vigorously defend the program. If the legislature turned a good program into a disaster he needs to say so.

Joe said...

As I said, he has RomneyCare, popular in MA, THEN...just like he has his statement about how he'd be a better friend of gays than Ted Kennedy...all that might play or have played well in MA, but in the rest of America, not so much....

He's from MA an' MA ain't the US...anyone running from MA, Romney OR Kerry has the problem of having succeeded in a very "blue" state.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

I think that Huckabee has taken himself out of it in favor of a steady well paying job at Fox and I seem to remember that he has recently moved to Florida if I'm not mistaken for tax purposes.

Romney I think has way too much Mass. Gov. baggage to really fly with the base,though you can't take his business prowess away from him.

Gov. Christie is flying high but I think the dem powers that be in N.J. got caught flatfooted by him actually doing what he said he was going to do. I wouldn't be surprised if his enemies succeed in tearing him down at some point, there's a lot of power at play there.

I like Paul Ryan but at this point I think he looks to young to be taken presidential but he did rip Obama a new one at that health care photo-op earlier in the year and he has some kind of "road map" floating around right now.

What does it all mean? We're too far out to even guess but it's a sad state of affairs when the current president makes Hillary look good.
I mean this woman has a circus train load of baggage following her, plus more. I don't think I could stand going through all of it again...

Joe said...

what NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

edutcher said...

Willie is at the White house trying to cut some kind of deal. The talk about 'economic advice' should remember he took his direction from Dick Morris. Maybe a Hillary as VP (or maybe just begging to keep her at State given her lousy record) - if she challenges him, he'll do to her what Jimmy Carter did to Teddy Kennedy. For The Zero to win, the U-6 would have to be at 5, the Gulf cleaned up, ZeroCare repealed with a big, "I'm sorry", taxes cut, and immigration controlled.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

As several have said, Romneycare kills Romney and Huckleberry probably won't get out of the starting gate. Miss Sarah won't get the nod (if she's foolish to run this time) and Newt has too much baggage.

The nominee? Demint or Coburn in the Senate, Bachmann in the House, Christie, Brewer, or one of several others in the state houses.

Time is right for a Reagan-Carter rematch.

virgil xenophon said...

Quite frankly in PR "Q-factor" terms ANY white GOP male will be painted as a racist white-bread product of privilege and the establishment who is too "cosy" with "big business" and "corrupt," "selfish" corporations and who is old news at that to the MTV/Comedy Central generation. Only a minority fresh-faced articulate female like Indian-American Nikki Haley of S. Carolina has a chance. And her lack of record shouldn't be any barrier--it sure wasn't for Obama. Unlike any other poss. candidates It will be hard to paint her policy proscriptions as racist and she is articulate/glib enough to master (already HAS) both the 30 sec sound-bite and the formal speech as well as the extended press conference. Will be exceedingly difficult to depict her as either unintelligent/lacking in knowledge, racist, sexist, or senile-like out-of-touch. Any one or some combination of all of those critiques could be thrown at anyone else. And she is a "twofer" to boot who doesn't carry the baggage of controversial statements like Palin or Bachman. She dresses safely suburban conservative with just enough fashionable panache to be considered mildly "hip." And while not a "forward-fashion," type, displays an air that at least she has a nodding acquaintance with the fashion trends such that the fashionistas will find it hard to dump on her with the"frumpy" label.

In short she should be able to debate circles around Obama;, is a true conservative, and relatively invulnerable to attack/character assassination. The good people of S. Carolina will forgive her for leaving early.

AllenS said...

The only reason that Hillary would take another run at the presidency, is if Obama decides not to run. I don't believe that Hillary would challenge Obama. No matter what Bill tells her.

Cedarford said...

Joe - "He's from MA an' MA ain't the US...anyone running from MA, Romney OR Kerry has the problem of having succeeded in a very "blue" state."

So, let me get this right...any moderate from a Northern state or California in the Republican Party should be stigmatized...
No room in the Republican ranks for "those sorts?"

Great idea. Tell Scott Brown, OLympia Snow, Judd Gregg, Susan Collins, Gov. Christie, Meg Whitman if she wins that they are unwelcome and best switch to be Democrats.

==================
The chat about Obama is all premature, anyways. What really matters are the coming elections now only 3 1/2 months out.

New said...

I have said so many times here that Obama/Biden are here to stay till Jan. 2016. I sound like a broken record.

GOP cannot win. Why?

- NO leadership
- NO charisma
- ALWAYS OVERREACH
- ALWAYS SCANDALS in Waiting
- Disasters just about to be discovered (at the nick of time)
- Media does not love you. So, do all voters.
- Overseas no one likes GOP
- Universities do not like GOP.

WHo likes GOP? No one. Even GOP does not like GOP.

Joe said...

Great idea. Tell Scott Brown, OLympia Snow, Judd Gregg, Susan Collins, Gov. Christie, Meg Whitman if she wins that they are unwelcome and best switch to be Democrats.

IF they want to be POTUS…it’s not difficult to grasp C4 the GOP is the Centre-RIGHT Party and if you are Centre/Centre-Left, it might work for you in your state, but it ain’t going to fly nationwide….

Ask AlGore, in the US House he was Pro-Life and had an NRA endorsement, but when he went “national” all that went by the wayside…you know the Democrats, the Centre-LEFT Party? When you are out-of-touch with the median voter of your party or the national median voter, you don’t win….Kucinich or Alan Keyes or Michael Badnarik rings a bell?

Hoosier Daddy said...

It made Daniels appear squishy.

Herein lies the problem. There is no 'perfect candidate'. Social issues only matter when people are employed and the economy is chugging along nicely. Face it, redneck BillyBob from Pennsyltucky doesn't give two hoots about gay marriage/abortion/legal marijuana if he's out of work and about to lose his unemployment. The reverse is equally true for the Birkenstock lefty who can't get anyone to buy his unique $10 homemade bars of soap cause everyone is cutting their spending.

Like I said and others have reiterated, the key issue will be the economy. That is all that anyone will care about. Hell all you had to do is look at the last election where suddenly Iraq, Bush's bane, was relegated to issue number 876 while the economy was #1

Joe said...

New, wow that was insightful...I guess Ronald Reagan and Bush 43 never happened, or the election of 1994...well thanks for that, I'm off to register as a Democrat, now...

virgil xenophon said...

PS: Nowhere here am I contending Ms Haley is the MOST qualified/experienced poss. GOP candidate; only that she is the most ELECTABLE without being UNQUALIFIED to hold office--unlike Obama who was eminently electable, but TOTALLY unqualified by dint of either experience, personality, or political philosophy

Lance said...

Huckabee, Romney, Palin, and Gingrich are all straw men. None of them have a realistic shot at the 2012 Republican nomination. Their best hope is that Obama turns things around, at which point the Repubs will tap one of them to be the sacrificial goat (a la Bob Dole in '96).

If the Obama administration is still struggling next year, look for Pawlenty, Daniels, or maybe Jindal to get the nod. There's also the possibility of a complete dark horse (like Mike Leavitt, although he's a major long shot).

Scott M said...

This poll is irrelevant as the Democratic candidate isn't Hillary.

Mark said...

New shows all the sophistication of your average high school sophmore clinging to the edge of an "in" group where she knows she's the one the other girls think doesn't belong.

Joe said...

Hoosier, I agree, to a point…HOWEVER, Daniel’s proposal said to Social Cons, and I am one, that even if you agree with my fiscal plan, which most of us do, I’m not going to give you anything….Nope, the Left can have tax increases, and Cap and Trade and Immigration Reform and Card Check and National Healthcare, i.e., they can advance much of their agenda, but I’m going to only advance a little portion of the Right’s Agenda…Give me your vote, but don’t ask me about abortion…well I say with Palin I can have BOTH, so why you?

Plus the idea was based on an obviously fallacious belief, that IF we abandon the social issues, THEN the “moderate” Democrats will not oppose us in Congress, sure ask Bush ’43 about that, NCLB, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Feingold…sure after having let senior Democrats write all or much of the legislation, they were VERY amenable to Bush’s other ideas…RIGHT.

To Social Cons, it appeared that we got tossed under the bus, all on the forlorn hope that Steny Hoyer would then not complain about starving children and racist, mean-spirited extremist Republicans cutting welfare and ensuring that the old, the sick, the young and People of Colour would die in the streets!

And then suddenly he ran from the idea…oh well then, sign me up for this guy! I mean his own side gets grumpy and he’s running for cover inside two days, I’m SURE he’s going to stand up to Schumer and Hoyer!

bagoh20 said...

Which Barack Obama are we talking about?

The 2012 version is still in the the R&D department.

Joe said...

(The one not registering as a democrat.)

Will Obama even win the Democratic party nomination? Surely, he'll be challenged. If the challenger is credible, the press will likely turn on Obama something fierce and he simply won't survive the scrutiny. I think there's a very real possibility Obama will pull a Johnson and drop out before getting too embarrassed (assuming someone challenges him from with the democratic party.)

Unfortunately, the press with then fawn all over their newly appointed one.

Flexo said...

Mitch Daniels: Hey! What's Wrong With Him?

Mitch "Truce" Daniels destroyed any presidential prospects he had before he even got out of the gate.

And Weasel Romney will never get the nomination because of RomneyCare.

Huckabee is likewise a weasel, Gingrich is a dinosaur, and Pawlenty is a lightweight squish. Palin will not run because the MSM will not let her have a fair shake and Dems would seek to nuke her from the get-go.

If it is any of the above, they might still win, but folks will be left with a bad taste in their mouths.

Look for someone new to be drafted. Christie or Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (who just led Virginia to a budget surplus this year).

Bob From Ohio said...

Everyone is leaving out a successful and popular two term governor of a crucial large state.

That man is popular with Evangelicals, Hispanics and can raise ungodly amounts of campiagn funds.

I can name one drawback with him but with our short memories, I submit it is not a decisive one.

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Off Topic: Fox reporting that BP says currently no oil is flowing into the gulf.

I hope it holds...

Paddy O said...

I agree that Palin is now fairly neutralized.

But, she has the benefit of having driven the national debate on the conservative side. She has stayed in the news on a popular level, on her own terms. And agree with her or not, she has shown good political instincts and bravery in boldly stating what a lot of others in office may think but don't say.

Which means that she probably would have been a great VP.

Now, though, she'd probably be best as the head of the RNC.

I do think she might have a path to the presidency if she goes beyond her present public role and begins to do a significant amount of higher level debates and discussions. Her reputation was trashed and the only way for her to possibly restore it is to be extremely impressive in her knowledge of national and global politics. I don't know if she is up for that, but I suspect she might be.

Palladian said...

"Overseas no one likes GOP"

OMG! The GOP might as well just give up now! BECAUSE IF PEOPLE OVERSEAS DON'T LIKE YOU, YOU MIGHT AS WELL SHOOT YOURSELF!!!!!!!1 PEOPLE OVERSEAS ARE SO SMART!!!

bagoh20 said...

"Fox reporting that BP says currently no oil is flowing into the gulf."

Yea, I pulled an all nighter. The invoice is on the way.

bagoh20 said...

Romney is gonna need a complete reworking and hopefully a lot of pear shapes will vote.

Joe said...

(The Crypto-Jew, who really OUGHT to register Democrat, I guess)

Were Obama NOT to receive the nomination in 2012 would be d@mn near apocalyptic! The last guy not to run, was LBJ! Things would have to be dire, at home and abroad for Obama not to receive his party’s nod! Basically, the nation would be saying, in spite of your record, your fund-raising, the party organization, and vote inertia, we think you stink…and by extension that we F*cked up in 2008. I just really can’t see that happening…and truth-to-tell I don’t want things to be so bad, that it’s remotely possible!

A.W. said...

Roger

> I think so if they drop their foolish opposition to gay rights, abortion and social issue

So, basically, the republicans can win... if they are democrats. You know, because Bush’s stance on those things hurt him so much.

Cedar

> If the Dems have a bloodbath in under 4 months - to stave off more damage to their Party - look for internal challenges to a standing President - not limited to Hillary.

Well, on the other hand, given democratic hang ups on race, I wonder if they would really be willing to do that. it would be extremely damaging to the party because if obama loses, or worse yet loses the nomination, then a lot of black people might think that the first black president was stabbed in the back.

That is unless he is such a complete frak up that even his massive support among black people disappeares.

Mark

> Jindal will have the most leverage re: Obama failures with concrete consequences. His religiosity bothers me, but whatchoogonnado?

It would be interesting, because that would make Jindall the Catholic in the race. I wonder if that would help him among Hispanics?

Not your...

> Gov. Christie is flying high but I think the dem powers that be in N.J. got caught flatfooted by him actually doing what he said he was going to do. I wouldn't be surprised if his enemies succeed in tearing him down at some point, there's a lot of power at play there.

Well, first, I would want Christie to be governor longer before going for president.

But yeah, if Christie is any good as a human being, I half expect the man to get whacked. You know that phrase about how a rich man has about as much chance of getting into heaven as a camel does in squeezing through the eye of a needle? I think a good man has as much chance of surviving New York politics.

Edutcher

Completely disagree. The republicans will not be eager to replace one legislator who doesn’t know how to run anything with another. None of the republican congressmen are in the running, period. Only governors and maybe a mayor.

Virgil

> Quite frankly in PR "Q-factor" terms ANY white GOP male will be painted as a racist white-bread product of privilege and the establishment who is too "cosy" with "big business" and "corrupt," "selfish" corporations and who is old news at that to the MTV/Comedy Central generation. Only a minority fresh-faced articulate female like Indian-American Nikki Haley of S. Carolina has a chance.

Well, except them the republicans will be accused of “me too”-ism. Really basically anyone the republicans nominate will be treated like jerk by those elements, period.

> And her lack of record shouldn't be any barrier--it sure wasn't for Obama

Except a lot of people will take obambi as a cautionary tale on why experience matters.

New

Shorter new: “I hate republicans so I can’t imagine them winning.”

But let’s fisk this in more detail:

You assert a lack of leadership on the part of the GOP. I don’t know Jindal showed more leadership on the oil spill than the Won.

You accuse the republicans of overreach. Mmm, yeah, given that obama has taken over my healthcare, I’ll take that as seriously as it sounds.

> - ALWAYS SCANDALS in Waiting

As opposed to the president from Chicago, I suppose.

> - Disasters just about to be discovered (at the nick of time)

As opposed to the disaster in the gulf Obama knew about, and did nothing to prevent or even mitigate.

> - Media does not love you. So, do all voters.

Right. Remember in 2008 how John McCain actually got 0% of the vote?

> - Overseas no one likes GOP

Too bad they don’t have a vote.

> - Universities do not like GOP.

And lord knows, if those practical people don’t like the GOP...

A.W. said...

yeah, let's hope the spill is done and over and maybe we can start to see the light at the end of this tunnel.

but i have been here before, so i ain't getting my hopes up.

Beth said...

I'll add to DBQ's statement on Jindal and ask "WHY Jindal?"

Jindal touts the same old cut taxes, blah blah blah, but all we have had under his leadership are deficits. He has done absolutely no development. We just lost a major industry, ship building at Avondale, to Mississippi. The guy doesn't know how to create jobs. He's never built anything up.

Lance said...

Everyone is leaving out a successful and popular two term governor of a crucial large state.

No. No, no, No, NO! No more family dynasties! No one named Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy need apply.

As much as Jeb might make a good president, this country doesn't need any more family dynasties. On the other hand, he'd make a fine RNC chair.

Scott M said...

If the cap works this time, how many milliseconds do you think it will be before the administration takes all the credit? That would be par for the course thus far.

On a related note, and I shit not one of you with this, I was doing my secondary email admin duty today and came across a password that was, not kidding at all, OILBPSN. I need Dyonne Warwick or someone to tell me what the "sn" is supposed to be.

A.W. said...

btw, New you like totally made me cry. you mean no one likes us, at all? but then who will go to the prom with us.

Dude, really why do you think you will be taken seriously with that kind of childishness?

Howard said...

If the repugs take back the House, Obama will likely win. If the demos manage to hold on to congress, Obama will be toast.

Scott M said...

Jindal touts the same old cut taxes, blah blah blah, but all we have had under his leadership are deficits. He has done absolutely no development. We just lost a major industry, ship building at Avondale, to Mississippi. The guy doesn't know how to create jobs. He's never built anything up.

I don't know that much about him, so don't take this as carry his water, but didn't he break ground on a brand-new car factory?

Original Mike said...

"Plus the idea was based on an obviously fallacious belief, that IF we abandon the social issues, THEN the “moderate” Democrats will not oppose us in Congress"

Is that what Daniels said, Joe? If that was his reason, I'd agree with you it was dumb. But I would have thought a better rational for treading lightly on the social agenda is to attract two groups; social conservatives who want fiscal constraint (like you, I assume) and people like me who want fiscal constraint but get turned off by a social agenda that's too hard core for my tastes.

You can't win with a small tent.

jr565 said...

Ann wrote:
I still think that once the race gets going and people really look at, say, Romney right next to Obama — really picture the other guy as President — the eagerness to oust Obama will cool off.


Not sure about that. He will get his core voters, namely democrats (though even a fewer of the more lefty ones might leave), but no conservative will vote for him.
This past election there were a lot of republivans for Obama who broke ranks and signed on board the Obama express. It wont happen this year.
Then there are the indpendents who seem to have broken en masse towards republicans. A lot can change certainly between now and election day, but Obama needs more than just democrats to actually win an election and it's going to be very tough for him to get those groups back.

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Flexo said...

You can't win with a small tent.

Social conservatives aren't kicking anyone out of the tent. But the GOP has to understand, it is a socially conservative tent. If the pro-abort fiscal conservatives run out of the tent, that is their doing. We're happy to have them in the tent, but we'll be damned if we are the ones who are shoved out of our own tent.

And guys like Daniels are going nowhere by effectively giving the middle finger to social conservatives.

Joe said...

But Original Mike, that IS the small tent…Fiscal Cons/libertarians….they won’t take you to the electoral Promised Land either. And I’m a Social Con, who wants to reduce gub’mint, but if a SCOTUS appointment comes up, that appointee had better oppose Roe V. Wade! And it SEEMED that Daniels was saying he’d be agnostic…it’s fine to have priorities, but when a chance comes up, never let a good crisis go to waste, to advance any portion of your movement’s objectives, you should take it.

As I said with Palin, I can have BOTH…so in a choice between Palin and Daniels, I’d vote Palin..in the primaries. Then Daniels ran from his idea, and now I understand that atheism leads to “brutality.” Wow, that’s certainly a sign of backbone, vision and will…

reader_iam said...

I think it's too soon for Christie.

I also would like to see him continue to work on New Jersey and implement his vision. Should it work, it would be a terrific model that perhaps other states could emulate, in whole or in part as their particular circumstances warrant. (I'm a fan of the "50 labs" vision of the states.) I don't think there's really time enough for him to do that between now and when, realistically, he'd have to start compaigning across the United States, which, if the 2008 election cycle is the model, would be next January or so. I also am concerned about what tends to happen when people are too hyped before their time.

The other thing is that Christie has said he doesn't want to do that, or at least isn't going to. Now, I know that politicians say that, and I also don't have a problem with them changing their minds (I also think he'd probably be forgiven for doing that, at least among his fans.) However, in one recent appearance when asked about that, he made reference to his wife, Mary Pat. If indeed she is opposed, at least at present, that's a real factor because--assuming that she has not significantly changed over the past 25-wo years, as from as far as I can tell Chris has not--Mary Pat is smart, sweet and quite formidable (I went to college with both; Chris and I were in student government together). They are a true team, and she absolutely would have to be on board. Their kids are still quite young and, to state the obvious, much younger than they would be in, say, 2016.

Just my two cents.

Damon said...

I have to disagree with Ann's conclusion of Romney vs. Obama. Let’s take a closer look at the context of the next election. One of the reasons Obama won was the political climate at the time.

Romney is a known economic heavyweight up against Obama's 4 torturous years. Obama supporters will not come out in droves if they don't see economic improvement. They simply will feel failed and unmotivated. Obama's policies are only helping dig the economic hole deeper. Not much is going to change in the next 2 years.

Ann seems to forget that Romney was a governor of a very liberal state and it was conservatives that were his downfall.

No, Romney could easily win in a landslide if he makes it out of the primaries.

Seriously Ann, this is your knee-jerk feeling even after a failed 2 years? It is so hard to believe you follow the day-to-day political arena and don’t have an appreciation for Romney and his past accomplishments. If you, a thinking liberal, don’t like Romney, our country is in real trouble.

Joe said...


A much smarter and more effective strategy on the social issues for the Republicans is to stress that these should be State level issues and not sweeping Federal mandates.


AGREED! Mayhap you should run for POTUS or at least the RNC...

Flexo said...

I think it's too soon for Christie

Yes it is.

But we do not have the leisure of waiting for prospects to work in the minor leagues. We are simply going to have to bring someone up sooner than we would like or else we will be stuck with the same losers we have, who just might bring everything crashing down.

A.W. said...

yeah, come to think about it, how retarded is it to say being against "gay rights" is hurting the GOP.

Gay rights can't even win IN CALIFORNIA.

reader_iam said...

I want to be clear. I'm not trying to discourage Chris or his fans long-term. I'm a fan of Chris Christie, cheered his candidacy from the beginning, and have stated that should he be successful in NJ (and barring the unforeseen which I simply can't imagine) and then run for president in, say, 2016, I will change my registration of no part/independent to Republican and actively campaign for his election in whatever state I happen to live at the time. This is a big whoop in the scheme of things, but it'd be a pretty damn big departure from the status quo for me personally.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

reader: "I think it's too soon for Christie"

flexo: Yes it is.

But we do not have the leisure of waiting for prospects to work in the minor leagues. We are simply going to have to bring someone up sooner than we would like or else we will be stuck with the same losers we have, who just might bring everything crashing down.


I agree with both of you. It is too soon for Christie and it would be good to see him continue his good work in New Jersey.

However, I think our country is facing a terrible terrible fork in the road. One that once we go down this path, forcibly prodded by Obama and the Democrats, our country will be lost, never to be regained.

We don't have the luxury of time.

Jim said...

This kind of stuff is endlessly fun, but totally meaningless this far out. Remember when everyone was convinced it'd be Hillary vs. Giuliani in '08?

Besides, different polls have totally different results. Time's new poll shows Obama trouncing Palin 55-34. They also prefer Obama over Bush 53-33.

Palladian said...

"That is unless he is such a complete frak up that even his massive support among black people disappears"

There is nothing that will cause him to lose the massive support of black people. Racialism will always trump any other factor. These are the same people who supported O.J. Simpson when it was clear that he brutally murdered two people and who re-elected Marion Barry.

Obama could slaughter a baby on Oprah and he would still receive majority support from black voters.

Tribalism in its many incarnations will never die, and might possibly destroy the world one day.

Beth said...

Scott, that's the V Car factory, and it hasn't got its financing in order; it's an idea thus far, unless something has changed in very recent weeks. That would mean 1500 jobs; we just lost more than 5000 with Northrup Grummon's move from Avondale.

bagoh20 said...

Romneycare is the issue. It's all I have against Romney, along with the thinking that lead to it.

It is a serious failing and conservatives don't let candidates just gloss over failing on principle like that.

Jim said...

The fact that Gingrich is even mentioned as a serious contender every four years just baffles me to no end. The guy hasn't done anything for the last 10 years but talk. He comes across as arrogant and routinely says embarrassing and un-serious things.

Plus the fact that he always plays footsie with the idea of running and then runs away when it's time to get in the game. I would think people would be moving on by now.

Original Mike said...

"A much smarter and more effective strategy on the social issues for the Republicans is to stress that these should be State level issues and not sweeping Federal mandates."

Yes. There is nothing more important than the issue of national solvency, because without that everything else is irrelavant.

reader_iam said...

I could certainly support Mitch Daniels, though I do understand those who object to him either or charisma grounds or the truce issue (I don't personally care much about the former but realize I'm not the model, and, for the most part, am not a social conservative, especially in the national sense).

Original Mike said...

"Besides, different polls have totally different results. Time's new poll shows Obama trouncing Palin 55-34. They also prefer Obama over Bush 53-33."

I don't know about this particular poll, but yes I think Obama would trounce Palin. Which is why, with all due respect Joe, I don't think you can have it "both" with Palin. The candidate needs to win the general for you to have anything at all.

reader_iam said...

The candidate needs to win the general for you to have anything at all.

Bears repeating.

Michael Haz said...

Rudy.

traditionalguy said...

@ New...At least the GOP has a party Chairman with a rational strategy for the Afghan occupation forces now being set up for a sure loss by Obama's double mindedness. Obama is so clearly a saboteur of our foreign policy and of our coal and oil Industrial policies that any truth teller with a good skill in personal connection to voters will beat him. Now where can the GOP find such a candidate?

Dead Julius said...

I still think that once the race gets going and people really look at, say, Romney right next to Obama — really picture the other guy as President — the eagerness to oust Obama will cool off.

Absolutely! And let's not forget about the mechanics of the primary process. The Republicans are going to put forth their establishment candidate, and talk about issues that don't matter anymore, when what they really need to do is look forward and take the best candidate from the Tea Party.

Just look at the crop of 2008: Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Palin-- the all sucked! None of them brought any new perspective or ideas; not even Palin, although at least she was fresh and had MILF titties.

Now Ron Paul... he brought a different way of thinking, didn't he? And the establishment did everything it could to make sure that he and his followers stayed in the little box they had set out for him.

The same thing is going to happen in 2012-- the Republican establishment will treat the Tea Party influence the exact same way it treated the Paulbots in 2008.

Ask yourself: Who's to blame for Obama and his misdeeds?

The Republican establishment is.

...because they failed to put forth a viable candidate in 2008. And they continue to fail now by not putting up a worthwhile opposition to Obama and the Democrats.

reader_iam said...

Although, that said, I'd also like to second what DBQ said about state vs. national venues for social conservative issues. (Again, my bias is for the 50 different states concept of our country; I'd prefer relatively little to be determined at the national level. I understand that others sincerely disagree.)

OT: Is any one else constantly getting the visual verification message or otherwise being forced to hit "preview" and close the box in order to get a wv OR to log in OR to check the follow-up comments box? I mean, I know the workaround, but it is getting a little irritating. Is it just my machine?

Dead Julius said...

@danielle-

Obama will win in 2012. and Hillary will be his VP.

That would be a smart political move because Biden is a total drag.

My money is on this outcome right now.

Paul said...

Obama is not going to be reelected. He is worse than Jimmah Carter and the country is, and will be even more so by the time of the election, in worse shape than it was in 1980.

Romney will not be the R candidate. Neither will Huckabee or Newt. They will never capture the hearts and minds of the voters.

Never.

It will either be Palin or someone yet to rise to prominence.

I think Palin has the talent, the time, and the opportunity to completely rehabilitate her image. With all the events that have discredited the MSM, which is solely responsible for her unfair treatment, she will be perceived as having been slandered by a corrupt and dishonest body. That too will redound in her favor. Everytime I see her she is more poised and articulate...she's busy grooming herself and honing her chops. Her political instincts are excellent. Her values and patriotism will strongly resonate with people after four years of radical leftwing anti-Americanism and it's attendant damage to the economy and the national psyche.

She's a really good looking woman with charisma and star power and like it or not that makes a big difference.

Dead Julius said...

Three words for Republicans if you want to win in 2012:

Draft John Mackey.

Yes, that's right. John Mackey. To run for President.

And adopt a party platform of federalism on social issues combined with national financial austerity.

Synova said...

"Just look at the crop of 2008: Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Palin-- the all sucked! None of them brought any new perspective or ideas; not even Palin, although at least she was fresh and had MILF titties."

I liked Giuliani and Fred. I think that Fred would have been an excellent president precisely because he refused to hype up and play a dancing bear to get it. Giuliani had the law and order stuff and some unexpectedly conservative ideas about how to solve problems, plus he had the socially liberal stuff that everyone claims so loudly to want. I think they lie, but there you go.

Sarah was certainly too fresh. I don't consider this her fault except that she might have said "no" and I rather wish she had done that. My suspicion is that McCain was going to ask Jindal, who was also too fresh, (on the notion that the ticket needed "color") but a hurricane intervened.

"Ask yourself: Who's to blame for Obama and his misdeeds?

The Republican establishment is.

...because they failed to put forth a viable candidate in 2008.
"

I disagree.

Jesus Christ Himself would have had difficulty winning election in 2008 with an (R) after his name.

It was almost certainly going to be a Democrat win. Sure, odder upsets have happened than Republicans winning in 2008 but it was the Democrats race to lose.

The Democrats chose Obama and the people voted for Hope and Change... the excitement for him was unprecedented.

Blaming that on *Republicans* is a reach too far.

Trooper York said...

"Draft John Mackey."

Why?

He sucked when he played for the Colts. He must be 70 now.

The only good thing he ever did was when he cheated on that play that beat the Cowboys in the Super Bowl.

Are you saying we need to cheat?

Trooper York said...

Oh and that's a cheesy avatar Beth.

bagoh20 said...

True Conservative ideas are exciting and represent the only real change possible from the direction this country has been going for 40 years.

I don't see what is so hard about finding someone energetic about smaller government; someone who people can accept really believes in those ideas. Do we have to always pick someone who you never really trust won't cave to the same old crap.

Liberals have the same problem, but they aren't picking the next President.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Again, my bias is for the 50 different states concept of our country; I'd prefer relatively little to be determined at the national level. I understand that others sincerely disagree

That is my preference too and why the Tea Party ideas are appealing to me. I also am not that much of a social conservative and strongly feel that local and state level politics should be more of a consideration than a one size fits all from the top down mandate. State's rights in a way.

A strategy of State control on these issues instead of trying to put a "plank" into the national platform would be much more palatable and would allow the Republicans to have a bigger tent that contains the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives AND independents AND moderates, who are generally turned off by extremes on either the left or the right.

(And yes. I'm having problems too.....not just your machine.)

As much as I like Palin and voted for her, not McCain: I just don't think she would be a wise choice for 2012. Too much baggage and too divisive. She would lose. The cruical thing is to get Obama and the liberal progressives out of power.

Original Mike said...

I've been having that problem for some time now, reader.

reader_iam said...

I think they lie

That's a strong word choice, and you've always chosen your words carefully (that's a compliment, not a slap). Why do you think it's a lie?

A.W. said...

Sy

> Jesus Christ Himself would have had difficulty winning election in 2008 with an (R) after his name.

But wait, i thought obama WAS Jesus.

Paul said...

"As much as I like Palin and voted for her, not McCain: I just don't think she would be a wise choice for 2012. Too much baggage and too divisive. She would lose."

I disagree obviously. We will see.

Bob From Ohio said...

"No. No, no, No, NO! No more family dynasties! No one named Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy need apply."

We'll see. I guess you will really hate it when George P. Bush starts out in politics. I personally look foward to the 2024 Chelsea Clinton v. George P. campaign.

As TosaGuy points out, any GOP nominee starts out with all of McCain's states. They just need to add some states.

Jeb wins Florida for starters, guaranteed. Nobody else on the GOP side can deliver Florida for sure.

Jeb's biggest obstacle to the nomination is his views on immigration.

AprilApple said...

Come on American - you cannot vote for the guy with amazing business experience. No way. You gotta vote for the community organizer.

Bruce Hayden said...

My view is that Huckabee is out because of his social conservatism. Not that some of the others are not socially conservative, but he is the candidate of the social conservatives, and their time is past. He does not have the fiscal conservative credentials, and after 4 years of Obama, that is what is going to win the election for the Republicans.

I don't know if Romney could have beaten Obama in 2008, but he at least wouldn't have done as badly as McCain did. Why? The turning point in the race was when the banking system blew up, and McCain jumped in trying to broker a deal. In retrospect, he looked like he was charging in when he didn't know what he was doing, while Obama just looked studious, serious, and knowledgeable. Of course, within months of being elected, it was obvious that he didn't have a clue about what was going on or about economics in general. Likely knew only a fraction of what McCain knew.

Romney on the other hand had better credentials than did Obama scholastically, had built companies, worked in finance, and run a state. And, probably has 20+ IQ points on the current President too. Of all the candidates running last time around, he probably understood the problems the best, and was the most likely to come up with viable solutions.

But that was then, this is now. My view is that he is too much like Obama to win. Tall, two Harvard graduate degrees, etc. I think it likely that the Republicans don't run anyone with an Ivy League graduate degree next time, and esp. not a law degree.

I think that Gingrich is misunderestimated a lot. He is a good speaker, and in particular, when it comes to economic and national security issues. By the time the election comes around, I think that we are all going to be sick and tired of "some people may say" straw man speeches by Obama, and I think that Gingrich is one who could make the President sound incompetent.

Finally, one thing that has to be kept in mind about Republicans is that they almost never nominate someone for President who has not run before. GWB was an exception because of his father. At worst, they have to have a household name. But mostly, I think that it is some sort of it being someone's turn for the nomination. This is just the opposite of the Democrats who know that they need to nominate unknowns to win (at least after LBJ).

AJ Lynch said...

Wrong Professor & I suspect you were being sarcastic.

Obama does not have the skill needed to defend what will be a horrible first-term track record. Obama was perfect when he had no record to speak of and used Axelrod's talking points 247 and was running against Bush.

Don Knotts would look more presidential than Obama in 2012.

Damon said...

Dead Julias and danielle are smokin' some wacky tabacky. There is no chance (read: NO WAY IN HELL) Hillary becomes the VP cantidate. There is no feasable way that will happen and to think otherwise shows a complete cluelessness.

Jim said...

Tim Pawlenty...

Very successful 2 term governor of Minnesota and its 10 electoral votes. Also, next door neighbor Wisconsin has been nip and tuck Democratic, but could probably also be flipped with its 10 electoral votes, and don't forget about their neighbor to the south, Iowa, which has 7.

The electoral math for Obama (or any Democrat) gets REALLY difficult if Pawlenty can drop those into the (R) column.

He was in the final running for McCain's VP choice, so he's still somewhat in the "next guy in line" tradition of the GOP as well.

If he picks someone from the West (perhaps Colorado) as a VP, he could flip Colorado back as well.

It would make the "Republicans are just racist Southerners" line of attack null and void.

He's been to New Hampshire multiple times recently, and he's likely to throw his hat in the ring for 2012.

As others have pointed out, the MFM like picking Republican candidates for us beforehand. So their strategy with Pawlenty has been to pretend he doesn't exist and our only choices will be those who they're polling. I notice that PPP didn't poll him against Obama, and I doubt that was an accident.

Synova said...

"That's a strong word choice, and you've always chosen your words carefully (that's a compliment, not a slap). Why do you think it's a lie?"

Well, the "they" is sort of squishy.

But I think that many people who claim that what the Republicans need to do to win is go with socially liberal candidates who are otherwise conservative, don't actually back this up with their support and votes. Or else why didn't Giuliani do better?

Too many people were too busy explaining why Giuliani could never ever win the base to step up and tell people why it shouldn't matter that he wasn't planning to use the office as a soap-box for social issues, so long as he got foreign relations and the economy right. I heard a little bit of him talking about health care and access and what we do to actually help people and the man was *good*. So where were all those "we need to go with social liberals" people? They were voting for McCain.

(Which is different, I think, than all the other "thems" who think that the Republicans have to shed the social conservatives and the Tea Party and are simply mistaken about that because Huckabee is an aberration to them that they can't process.)

(Also, for clarity... I'd vote for Obama before I'd vote for Huckabee.)

AJ Lynch said...

I also would love to see states rights be the focal point of the 2012 election along with the promise to dismantle non-core federal agencies and their budgets.

It would be nice to have 50 blogs like Althouse's with one focused on each state. I am tired of the focus on the fed govt, the spotlight on whoever is president and the citizen's expectation that Washington DC has all the answers and solutions to our problems.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Also, for clarity... I'd vote for Obama before I'd vote for Huckabee

I'd drink a bottle of scotch and get blind drunk on election day before I would vote for either of them.

Deborah said...

I'd love to see this guy take on Obama. Heh.

wv: jaildet. "Jeter, how'd you get your hair to stick up like that?" "Why Bubba, I jaildet."

Gene said...

What is wrong with republicans that the only candidates they can offer for 2012 are tired old retreads like Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee, or peppy new retreads like Palin? Don't the Republicans have anyone who looks presidential? Ron Paul has interesting edgy ideas but he looks and sounds like the assistant manager at my local Radio Shop. There's no one out there I'd want to follow across the street even with the green light.

reader_iam said...

There's no one out there I'd want to follow across the street even with the green light.

No comment either way on the overall comment, but I absolutely ***love*** that line as a line. I'm definitely going to steal for use in real life.

"I wouldn't follow you across the street even with the green light!"

Way more polite than, say, "I wouldn't piss down your throat if your lungs were on fire!"

LOL.

Synova said...

"I'd drink a bottle of scotch and get blind drunk on election day before I would vote for either of them."

Or get a root canal or shoot myself in the foot or go the paper cut and lemon juice route.

reader_iam said...

Not that I generally use the latter in real life, but, you know, every once in a while you just gotta cut loose... .

reader_iam said...

Or at least think about it.

reader_iam said...

I think it would be great if Althouse someday posts a "creative insults you don't see every blessed day" thread.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Really? You think? Wow. I guess I always thought Romney's mannequin-like presence and plastic persona was a bigger liability than you did. Until now.

Way to come around!

The other Republicans will push researchers to hurry up and invent a robot for them to program and run as president by... I'd say 2020 at the latest. Any further delays and they might go into paroxysms. Remembering which talking points to always stick with no matter what would get grueling to an actual human.

Youngblood said...

2012 is actually a pretty long way off.

The economic situation is bad and it's likely to get worse when the Chinese construction bubble pops. (This will almost certainly happen by 2012, although it could happen as early as the end of the summer.)

Iran could easily get the bomb.

North Korea is arguably more of a danger than ever before.

With every passing day, illegal immigration is becoming a larger and larger issue. Right now the Republicans think that they have the momentum there.

However, that could all change the moment that people point out the reason that illegal immigrants are coming into the country is for jobs offered by unscrupulous employers.

It could also all change if people come to see illegal immigration as one part of a larger trend -- the trend of ostensibly American companies and corporations giving jobs to foreigners (see also "outsourcing").

We haven't heard much from the protectionist wings of the Republican or Democratic parties recently, but if things keep going the way that they are, we may.

The person who runs against Obama (whether a Republican or a primary challenger from the Democratic ranks) may be a relative nobody right now.

Deborah said...

This has got to be one of the best threads I've ever seen here - a classic.

wv: senetom

Mick said...

There will be some states and many individuals in states like Fla. that have statutes allowing voters to challenge the eligibility of the candidates. Obama will have to prove that he is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS, i.e Born in the US of US Citizen parents (not born subject to the jurisdiction of any other foreign power). For that reason he may not even run. Or the dicta of the coming AZ. Immigration case in the SCOTUS may de facto declare him ineligible. He was admittedly born subject to the jurisdiction of Britain, and is therefore not Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS.

Mick said...

The historical dam is breaking as more and more evidence surfaces proving Obama is not eligible. A reader of this blog who has asked to remain anonymous recently provided further historical proof that Obama is not eligible to be president. The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states:

"The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."

That is serious on point historical research. At the time of his birth, Obama owed allegiance to Great Britain. That is not disputed, it is admitted by the President himself. And this admission is the true problem Obama faces should this issue ever make its way to the Supreme Court. Obama owed allegiance to great Britain when he was born.


naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

Mick said...

Link

http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel+%2B%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false

Original Mike said...

"But I think that many people who claim that what the Republicans need to do to win is go with socially liberal candidates who are otherwise conservative, don't actually back this up with their support and votes. Or else why didn't Giuliani do better?"

Synova - There's a world of difference between "socially liberal" and "socially don't go waving the bloody flag of {abortion, gay marriage, etc.}".

IMO, the Giuliani data point is artifactual, as we scientist like to say. Remember, he tried that "novel" Florida first strategy, so there may have been more than one thing going on.

Cedarford said...

Paul on Palin - "She's a really good looking woman with charisma and star power and like it or not that makes a big difference."

Democrats have tons of women like that. Big tits, ill-read, trainwreck families, always close to reality TV shows, and media can't stop talking about them.

They are called Bimbos.

============================
As for "Fresh!" never ran for President! Thus an exciting "non-retread" person you can love and gravitate around?? That theory if you look at the last 40 years?

Fresh!! - Jimmy Carter, Bubba, Dubya, and The Perfesser..

Retreads!! - Nixon, Reagan, HW Bush.

I'll take the retreads that have been around the block a few times. The only "fresh!!" one worth anything was Clinton. (and he had two disastrous 1st years)

Chase said...

earlier dbq said:

I frankly don't want to hear anymore about his dying wife and his pecadillos.


Question: by 2012, can any of the following realistically be elected President of the United States?:

a ● a gay man

b ● a woman

c ● a married man publicly known to have had an affair

d ● a single man

edutcher said...

Palin has already shown she can galvanize public opinion (death panels) and just may be building a core constituency (mama grizzlies). As for damaged goods, if she keeps doing what she's had great success doing the last year or so, having the media against her may turn out to be a net plus.

Paul said...

"Democrats have tons of women like that. Big tits, ill-read, trainwreck families, always close to reality TV shows, and media can't stop talking about them."

zzzzzzzzzzzz

None of them are Governors with good track records of taking on corruption and have the conservative values and patriotic cred of SP. Plus calling her's a trainwreck family is pretty stupid.

But what would we expect from a bigot suffering from OCD like you?

Paul said...

"As for damaged goods, if she keeps doing what she's had great success doing the last year or so, having the media against her may turn out to be a net plus."

Bingo. By 2012 the MSM will be well recognized as the enemy of America and American democracy that it actually is.

Synova said...

"My view is that Huckabee is out because of his social conservatism. Not that some of the others are not socially conservative, but he is the candidate of the social conservatives, and their time is past. He does not have the fiscal conservative credentials, and after 4 years of Obama, that is what is going to win the election for the Republicans."

My feeling on Huckabee is that there is nothing wrong with his social conservatism. The problem is that he is not even a little bit conservative in any other way. Actually, I'm not sure how socially conservative he is past pro-life and God.

I know people who never gave up on him last time around, not until the very last minute. Praying for a miracle.

AprilApple said...

Instead of "it's the economy, stupid" the dems might want to realize that "it's the bad legislation, stupid".

(Actually it's both. Bad legislation leads to bad economics.)

Paul said...

Face it. The MSM shot it's wad in 2008. They went so deep in the tank for the half-Black Messiah that if he fails as President, and he is failing in a most spectacular fashion, they're brand is forever tarnished.

If Sarah Palin can consistently appear reasonable, personable, well informed, and in control of the narrative then people will see her as vindicated and the press as the vile treacherous lying partisan hacks they are.

People love a comeback kid.

People love the triumph of virtue over an evil power.

Will said...

You are wrong. Worst President ever. Anyone else would be better

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Although someone would first have to figure out how to give the robot a narrative that makes it come across as a victim.

The Irrelephants are no longer content with perpetual triumphalism. They need a martyr. A "comeback kid". Someone who faced the ridicule of the evil liberals and, you know, overcame it.

Think of Johnny 5. He'd be a good one.

Synova said...

"Synova - There's a world of difference between "socially liberal" and "socially don't go waving the bloody flag of {abortion, gay marriage, etc.}"."

True enough.

Until just recently Republican candidates were often pro-choice, but they were allowed to be quietly so.

This last time around I got Obama mailings blatantly associating McCain with pro-life oppression and explaining how a vote for McCain was a vote against women.

Bush wanted liberalized guest worker programs for Mexicans, lot of good it did him with being branded anti-immigration.

I think that the misrepresentation of any conservative candidate is pretty much a given.

Palin did more for the rights of gay domestic partners in Alaska, actual real quantifiable actions, than Obama had ever done, but she was still the scary theocratic boogy-man.

Suggest that Obama has socialist ideas about how the economy works and boy-howdy, you're a hater. Never mind for a moment that you make the case with his own statements.

It sort of goes with Palin as "damaged goods". At this point I think it just might be more important not to let the MSM and liberal harpies get away with it, even if she's not the strongest candidate otherwise. Because if they can get away with destroying her it means they can do the same thing to *any* candidate.

She has charisma, great leadership ability, management experience, seems to have a pretty good instinctive understanding of how things relate to each other and Cedarford doesn't like her...

Being an expert on things is what staffs are for.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

And like Ronnie Reagan, Johnny 5 was a movie star -- from the movie Short Circuit. "No disassemble Johnny 5! No disassemble!"

The average Irrelephant voter will love him!

Paul said...

"She has charisma, great leadership ability, management experience, seems to have a pretty good instinctive understanding of how things relate to each other and Cedarford doesn't like her..."

That's what I mean. When examined dispassionately without the seething hatred and bigotry of the demented C4s and Ritmo Foolios of the world she's a very strong candidate and very possibly the Reagan to Obama's Carter.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It sort of goes with Palin as "damaged goods". At this point I think it just might be more important not to let the MSM and liberal harpies get away with it, even if she's not the strongest candidate otherwise. Because if they can get away with destroying her it means they can do the same thing to *any* candidate.


This is a good point and would be the moral high ground. However, I don't want to be stuck with 4 more years of Obama, just to prove a point.

Eric said...

This is a good point and would be the moral high ground. However, I don't want to be stuck with 4 more years of Obama, just to prove a point.

I'm not too worried about that. At this point it's pretty clear that, in addition to being the worst president we've had since Jimmuh, Obama isn't even a very good politician. He rode a wave of anti-Bush sentiment and managed to get only 52% of the vote. The Republicans could run a pet rock in 2012 and still win.

Original Mike said...

"and Cedarford doesn't like her..."

Which may be one of the many reason I do. But I'm with DBQ. We need to get rid of Obama.

Paul said...

"This is a good point and would be the moral high ground. However, I don't want to be stuck with 4 more years of Obama, just to prove a point."

She would clean his clock.

But any competent Republican will beat him. People will be so sick of his toxic mixture of arrogance and incompetence that he will be drummed out of office.

There is a very good chance that once he becomes unpopular enough he will meltdown or quit. Narcissitic personalities collapse without adoration, especially someone who has had such intense adoration with so little real accomplishment.

Remember nobody is as disloyal or as quick to turn on a perceived liability as a lefty. They are famous for eating there own, and when the Obama brand becomes toxic enough it will get ugly for him. He doesn't have the stones or the guts to handle what will surely come his way when he gets much below 40%.

Paul said...

there=their

EnigmatiCore said...

I think that, barring the Republicans nominating Rand Paul, we are looking at an electoral map similar to the one Mondale faced.

Which means Rand Paul will be the GOP's nominee.

Cedarford said...

Synova on Palin - "She has charisma, great leadership ability, management experience, seems to have a pretty good instinctive understanding of how things relate to each other and Cedarford doesn't like her...

Being an expert on things is what staffs are for."

1. Charisma is big tits and resume filler as a former beauty contestant - an impressive credential for a woman to have to men in the "Southern Base".

2. Great leadership ability -
a. Boldly led a town on 5,000 people to double their debt.
b. Served 10 months on a commission she was appointed to, then quit.
c. Served 18 months as governor of Alaska, then quit.
d. Met once with a semi-senile man who picked her as a sidekick. Went "rogue".

3. Her ramblings out loud trying to think on the spot and explain how things link and related to one another are comic gold.

4. I don't like her. I also didn't like Jesse Jackson, John Edwards, and Barack Obama as charismatic BS spouters who attract a Cult of Personality around themselves.

5. No, staff is supposed to be able to fill in knowledge holes every candidate has, not substitute a brain in for one mostly lacking. I have no doubt that Palin is smarter and more knowledgable than Barbara Boxer, or the "stupidest Senator" that preceeded her (Robert Smith NH), or suceeded her (Mel Martinez, FL). But we want the bar higher for places like SCOTUS, CENTCOM, the Presidency.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Which means Rand Paul will be the GOP's nominee

Nope. Too new on the scene.

Plus he has to get rid of that marmot that he has perched on his head.

Aspects of libertarianism are very popular with many people, us old Ross Perot voters and independents. However, a pure libertarian is not going to draw from the mainstream of voters and will turn people off because he will be portrayed as a loon, just like his father was.

Synova said...

Palin doesn't have to get the nomination in order to prove the point that "we the people" aren't going to let someone else decide for us by dragging a candidate's family through the mud.

All I'm saying is, if she wants to, let her run and stop with all the "unclean! unclean!" stuff.

People do way to much deciding who other people won't vote for instead of deciding who they like best.

Might explain why the Republicans do seem to have so many really bad candidates.

(I couldn't say what explains the Democrat's problem with the same thing.)

traditionalguy said...

Ritmo...I enjoy reading your posts. Yet they seem to be based upon belief in an educated aristocracy that is needed to govern the commoners who are hopelessly ignorant. There are extremes like that for sure. But the American Experience has been to trust the commoners to understand life well enough to Govern themselves. That attitude came from the radical Christian belief that commoners are just as able to be part of the self governing community as the educated aristocracy. That difference IS the difference between an Obama as King with his Harvard/Yale Aristocracy Cabinet; and a Sara Palin and her belief in Tea Party commoners...like herself. Palin's only defect is that she does not worship educated fools. Why should she?

Kirby Olson said...

I would like Huckabee next round for the sense of humor.

New said...

My false critics do not understand. So, mark my words:

Obama/Biden win in all 50 states in 2012.

GOP has no real leadership.
GOP has no real vision.
GOP is searching for water in desert.

Sorry GOP may have great leaders (Reagan) but today there is nothing but emptiness.

Forget 2012. Think about 2016. Trust me. I know how things happen.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier, I agree, to a point…HOWEVER, Daniel’s proposal said to Social Cons, and I am one, that even if you agree with my fiscal plan, which most of us do, I’m not going to give you anything

Well with respect, I'm a fiscal and national security conservative. I don't give a shit about gay marriage, abortion, or any of that crap. I believe in freedom and liberty and if two queers want to tie the know then by all means let them enjoy the same joys of marriage (and divorce) that heteros do. If someone isn't smart enough to use easily available contraception I don't imagine they're bright enough to raise a kid.

Create economic opportunity, defend the nation from attack, build and maintain the infrastructure and provide for the common welfare are the main jobs of our government. That's what we should be concerned about.

danielle said...

Obama is going to need help corralling the liberals. Hillary will do that. Plus, they'll like that she'll be next in line to be the democratic nominee.

I think Hillary's stature will be far better after being secretary of state; and the Clinton hate will be yesterday's news (Obama is their new target). The fight will be for independent women, and Barack and Hillary as a team can do that.

If independent men are up for grabs (doubtful), the dems will have to win them because the republicans nominate mediocre or polarizing candidates .... like in 2008. go Sarah !

Hoosier Daddy said...

So, basically, the republicans can win... if they are democrats. You know, because Bush’s stance on those things hurt him so much.

Well if Democrats would let me keep more of my earnings, stop spending money on self-defeating welfare programs and maintain a strong military and defend the nation then I'd be a Democrat.

danielle said...

OMG, hell must be freezing over. I agree with a point made by Hoosier Daddy.

danielle said...

ah ! not that last one. the one before that !!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Plus, they'll like that she'll be next in line to be the democratic nominee.

Have some inside scoop on that or is that just wishful thinking?

I don't think you really appreciate the level of dislike between Obama and the Clintons. If he was going to pick her he would have done it in '08.

Hoosier Daddy said...

ah ! not that last one. the one before that !!.

They're not exactly dissimilar in content and meaning.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Trust me. I know how things happen.

Seriously?

Wow. Perhaps you can explain to us the proper proportion of leavening agents to solids in a good crusty loaf of bread. How can I always ensure that my sourdough bread is of the same sourness from batch to batch.

What is the purpose of the color purple?

Why aren't there more blue foods?

I'm sure I'll think of some more things that you can enlighten us about later.

Eric said...

Sorry GOP may have great leaders (Reagan) but today there is nothing but emptiness.

Yeah, most likely the GOP will run an empty suit in 2012, just like the Democrats did in 2008. And they'll win, too.

Trooper York said...

"What is the purpose of the color purple?"

To make more money for Oprah.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 276   Newer› Newest»