August 10, 2010

Should Barack Obama do a VP upgrade?

Replace Biden with Hillary? What's that all about?
Pundits jumped on [Former Virginia Gov. Doug] Wilder's comments and expressed near-universal approval. On his syndicated national show, Chris Matthews of MSNBC assembled a panel to discuss the Wilder intervention. Howard Fineman of Newsweek, a longtime Hillary watcher, said Mrs. Clinton would accept a place on the 2012 ticket "in a second." John Heilemann, a reporter New York magazine, said the major obstacle would be to "figure out a way for Biden to slide aside happily" and suggested that Mr. Biden replace Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State.

Along the way, Mr. Heilemann outlined why President Obama just might want to have a steadier hand at his side for his re-election campaign: "The Republican attack on Obama is going to revolve around 'too liberal,' but also 'too incompetent.' . . . They're going to say, 'Look, you hired this guy. He was too young for this job. He didn't know what he was doing. He didn't have the experience, and look what's happened.'"
Which is why he picked Biden the first time. All this disrespect for Biden! It's making me feel sorry for him. And it looks really desperate. And what's with this fretting about inexperience? When he runs for reelection, having been President for a few years, he'll have better experience than anyone. I don't understand why this Hillary for VP movement has any traction... unless the idea is to prevent her from going for President in 2012.

171 comments:

Big Mike said...

...unless the idea is to prevent her from going for President in 2012.

You broke the code!

Skyler said...

It'll never happen. Obama wouldn't trust in his own ability to remain among the living with her as vice president.

And he picked Biden to make himself look good in comparison.

Quayle said...

What's that all about?

Its about abject desperation - it's a hail Hillary pass.

AllenS said...

There's probably a realization that Obama/Biden is a losing card. Obama/Clinton is all that they think they have. When Biden is exiting, he'll say something stupid like he usually does, thus confirming that his removal was a good thing. Hillary will travel around the country telling everyone how good everything is, while Obama tells everyone that it's Bush's fault.

exhelodrvr1 said...

They are probably banking on the shallowness of 60% of the electorate, thinking that the image of a brilliant black man who reads a teleprompter like no other, and a tough-as-nails woman would fool enough voters to re-elect him. It would certainly put checks in all the PC boxes. And I understand their thought process. Plenty of people deliberately ignored all the warning signs in 2008, no reason to think they can't be fooled again.

traditionalguy said...

It's another way to talk about something that seems like normal American politics. That is their way to distract us from focusing on Obama's one man wrecking crew attacking every American institution and stronghold as fast as he can.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

A Hillary/Obama ticket might have a chance, but not the other way around.

Scott said...

So, Hillary would be Barack's training wheels? That's what it would look like. It would make Obama look even weaker than he is.

The Drill SGT said...

Prevent her from running in 2012 or help her to run in 2016.

you pays yuz money and takes yuz chances

Scott M said...

Looking at it from President Obama's position, yes. Whether the political calculus can stand such a decision remains to be seen (I'd say no, if betting), but what has Biden provided so far besides replacing Quayle as America's preeminent gaffe machine?

While it's impossible for any of us to know for sure, Occam's Razor says he's just a big an idiot in private.

Rialby said...

Is there some weird script running on your site now? Every time I hit it my browser hangs.

Scott M said...

As far as the Hillary possibility, there's that old adage about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

For Hillary, becoming Obama's VP has serious risk. If, by some miracle, he gets re-elected and we are still in a morass economically, that taint will stick to her even more than it already will. Currently, even though she's a part of this administration, she can claim distance to economic policy simply due to her job. If she becomes the VP, not so much.

If the President continues circling the drain, she's still set up pretty nicely for an insurgent campaign in 2012.

Calypso Facto said...

I bet Biden's got his own ideas about a PRESIDENTIAL upgrade.

AllenS said...

I have my doubts that Obama wants to be president any longer than he has to.

Matthew said...

Obama could tap Jesus as his VP, and it still wouldn't save him.

The stupidity and arrogance of this man, and the damage that it has -- and will continue to do -- to the American economy, race relations and political dynamic cannot be repaired by simply replacing Joe Biden with someone even dumber.

I say "dumber" because at this point, you'd have to be an incredibly rare species of blithering idiot to want this job, under this man.

If it hadn't already been made crystal clear by the fall of the Berlin Wall, the implosion of theS oviet Union, and the Chinese chucking communism for unbridled capitalism, the 1960's-brand of revolutionary socialism Obama and his ilk embrace was a complete failure.

Our sin as a country was to be desperate enough to cluth at this extremely thin straw.

Those of you who voted for this waste of space and now regret it, can kiss my behind with your "If only I had known!" routine. You just weren't paying attention.

Morons.

galdosiana said...

"...and suggested that Mr. Biden replace Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State."

Did anyone else shudder at the thought of Biden making the rounds as Sec. of State? I'd love to see the gifts he'd pick out, though...

Dudley Do-right said...

"When he runs for reelection, having been President for a few years, he'll have better experience than anyone."

I'm getting the feeling that, given the chance, Anne will vote for this guy again.

AJ Lynch said...

"he'll [Obama] have better experience than anyone" .

Seriously Althouse - do you see even a shred of evidence that Prez Obama is growing into the job or learning on the job?

Like the old joke goes .."he had a ton of experience but it was all bad experience".

AJ Lynch said...

Rialby- I have been having internet problems all morning.

A.W. said...

reportedly Biden's secret service code name is "Assassination Insurance."

i think obambi's poll numbers would have to improve considerably for Hilldog to make such an embrace of the man. if you are veep, you own the president's policies and failures. I don't think hilldog is ready to be tied to that albatross.

remember about mid-november 2008, when liberals were so excited about the idea of a President Obama that they imagined a scheme where Bush would step down immediately and by various mechanisms make Obama the president immediately, instead of waiting until january, on the theory that obama was going to be so good at this and bush could only make things worse in the meantime? i file this theory about hilldog right next to that one.

TosaGuy said...

Isn't this the same as painting your house when you should be fixing its foundation?

garage mahal said...

There's probably a realization that Obama/Biden is a losing card?

So, who is going to beat them from Republican side?

AllenS said...

Rialby, AJ, me too.

My CPU is going to 100% and staying there. I used task manager to leave this site a little bit ago.

AJ Lynch said...

Anybody but Obama will beat them.

AllenS said...

So, who is going to beat them from Republican side?

Pick any two names from the phonebook.

Crimso said...

"he'll have better experience than anyone"

Actually, there are two other individuals eligible to be POTUS that can claim to have at least as much experience. Not that anyone would entertain a notion for either of them to run.

Meade said...

They're going to say, 'Look, you hired this guy. He was too young for this job. He didn't know what he was doing. He didn't have the experience, and look what's happened.'"

GOING to say?

Big Mike said...

I took another look at this post's title. Ah, Professor, would you mind telling me why you think Hillary for Joe would be an upgrade?

Despite heading a department equipped wall to wall with multilingual speakers she couldn't be bothered to find someone to translate "reset" into Russian. She'd be some "upgrade," all right.

bagoh20 said...

"When he runs for reelection, having been President for a few years, he'll have better experience than anyone."

You'd think, huh? Experience is only helpful if you learn from your mistakes. Obama has shown no such ability, and reelecting him will tell him he was right in all those failures.

His is an ideological failing. If the failure of his ideology is not accepted, there can be no fixing his policy. Unfortunately it's not about the failing of the narcissistic man, but the narcissistic state establishment that's sinking us.

It looks like the American left is going to be the last group on earth to realize it. Europe seems to be quietly moving toward adopting our constitution as we abandon it.

Seven Machos said...

Once Fred Thompson failed miserably, Hillary Clinton was the best presidential candidate available in 2008.

I am saddened about that, but it's true.

I don't understand the argument here, though. Because if Obama wins, that would make Clinton the presumptive 2016 nominee. What better way to run for president than to be the sitting vice president? Not like you've got anything to do...

Big Mike said...

So, who is going to beat them from Republican side?

Right now Obama would be second choice to Beelzebub.

Seven Machos said...

Oh, I get it. Prevent Clinton from running in 2012. Well, if that's the case, then the very act of being asked would be Clinton's confirmation that she ought to run. Would it be too late?

Big Mike said...

Experience is only helpful if you learn from your mistakes. Obama has shown no such ability, and reelecting him will tell him he was right in all those failures.

Another person broke the code!!!

dick said...

I really disagree with your statement about his having better experience than anyone. From what he has done I would say he has not earned many experience points at all and he still hasn't a clue how to be an executive or exercise his executive powers in any meaningful way. He still refuses to take any responsibility for anything other than his finally mentioning people might not want him to campaign for them. He is still decision averse and when he does make a decision it is usually the wrong one. So I really disagree with his better experience. More experience on this particular job, yes, but most definitely not better experience at all.

What we have here is an almost total failure as a president to the point that even Jimmy Carter is almost looking good. What happened to all the transparency, the placing of all legislation online, the C-Span appearances, the keeping unemployment under 8%, the solving the deficit problem. He has done the exact opposite in every case here.

We would almost be better with Biden as president and Obama as VP. At least the FLOTUS would have a clue.

Matthew said...

"So, who is going to beat them from Republican side?"

If we lived in a perfect world, the Republican ticket in 2012 would be Newt Gingrich paired with either Rudy Guiliani, or Condoleeza Rice.

You can forget the second-tier idiots currently polluting Iowa (Pawlenty, Santorum) because they haven't a snowball's chance in the infernal regions.

Sarah Palin is too easily tagged with the "quitter" label. Tapping Chris Christie leaves him open to the same charge. Scott Borwn, everbody's "Real Conservative" flavor of the month a year ago, is pretty much no such thing.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon,which in most "real" conservative (small'c' intentional)precincts is the next best thing to being Satan himself.

If the name "Micheal Bloomberg" even enters your thought process, you should be subjected to a 24-hour, high-pressure enema. He is neither a republican, nor a conservative; those were just the easiest labels to buy in New York at the time.

Luke Lea said...

I would prefer Sen. James Webb of Virginia.

Obama needs to connect with white working-class voters to replace the young voters who are unlikely to turn out for him in the same numbers the second time around. The prospect of a future Pres. Webb would achieve that in a way that no other potential VP could match. It would be exciting.

pm317 said...

"When he runs for reelection, having been President for a few years, he'll have better experience than anyone."

That is just silly. He will be running on "results" not experience ("Hope and Change" will not work either)!

Some great comments, BTW.
----------------
Quayle said...

What's that all about?

Its about abject desperation - it's a hail Hillary pass.
-----------------

FormerTucsonan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

A couple of problems with this scenario:

1) Hillary has made her own fair share of gaffes as Secy of State. Anyone remember the "RESET" button? Plus, she's going to be saddled with every foreign policy failure of the Obama administration from the broken relationships with our allies to Iran and Afghanistan. So her experience as SoS isn't necessarily a net positive.

2) No matter how much she protests, she is STILL part of this administration and she's been absolutely silent while they went through one Leftist policy after another. She's had the option to resign at any time, and her failure to do so means that it's not unfair to stick her with the blame for EVERYTHING that Obama has done doing his first term as well. She's not going to be able to escape blame for his domestic policies either.

3) She brings her own baggage to the ticket. Getting shot at, the Rose law firm, cattle futures, her husband, etc.

4) There's a significant portion of the Democratic base that actually thinks that Obama is center-right (yes, really). To them Hillary Clinton is some sort of right-wing kook (which is part of why she lost the Democratic primary in the first place).

5) If you think ObamaCare is a bad idea, why on earth would the person who came up with HillaryCare be a better alternative?

6) This is the woman who came up the "vast right-wing conspiracy." So on what planet does she attract anyone from the other side of the aisle to vote for a ticket on which she appears?

7) There is perhaps no one else on the planet that Obama could put on the ticket that would fire up the Republican base to vote against him more than Hillary Clinton would. Just look at Republican voter enthusiasm going into the midterms now ratchet it up to "11" going into 2012 if you put Hillary on the ticket too.

8) Obama's ego could never support Hillary in the VP slot. A compensatory narcissist like Obama could not psychologically withstand having someone he himself knows would be more competent at the job standing next to him on stage in the #2 slot.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Do they seriously think that the voters who supported Hillary for President would vote for an Obama/Hillary ticket?

Obama cheated and literally stole the candidacy from Hillary through voter fraud and corrupt caucus processes.

Obama insulted Hillary. Gave her the finger. His 'team' treated her with the worst mysogyny ever. Then he put her into a position where she has been effectively stuffed into a box.

Hillary voters would never stand for this. Bringing her back out of the box because she might be useful for Obama's purposes. I would be just another insult.

I'm insulted at the thought, and I don't even LIKE Hillary. If she were to run.....she should run for the top slot.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

errr..... IT would be another insult.

pm317 said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

errr..... IT would be another insult.
-------------

You are absolutely correct.

AllenS said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Obama insulted Hillary. Gave her the finger.

She doesn't care. She's used to getting the finger. She never left Bill, and nobody could give her the finger like he could.

Was she embarassed about getting caught telling the lie about the sniper fire? Hell, no.

Fred4Pres said...

Hillary could run in 2016. Plus, who knows, maybe Michelle really does hate the Bidens.

John said...

Someone said that being a sitting VP was a good place to be to move to Prez.

I believe that there have only been 2 VP's who have been elected from VP to Prez. Jefferson and then not again till Bush 1.

A couple have, LBJ, Truman, T Roosevelt and others. But that has been because the prez died or was killed in office. Ford because Nixon resigned.

With the exception of Nixon, I can't think of any who even managed to get re-elected to a second term. LBJ & Truman dropped out, TR ran on a third party and lost.

No VP is not a very good position to launch a presidential campaign from.

John Henry

Matthew said...

Do you really think Hillary was insulted by the Obama campaign? I don't.

I think she's a shark, and she knows quite well that's how politics (especially D politics) are played.

She was so "insulted" that she lept at that offer of Sec. of State with almost indecent haste! Probably in the mistaken belief that it would have been a better launching platofrm for another go at the White House.

In hindsight, she was probably better off staying in the Senate.

AllenS said...

Are there any commenters on this blog that think Biden will be the VP if Obama decides to run again?

Jim said...

For all the whining about how the Republicans don't have a clear frontrunner yet, how sad for the Democratic Party that there is literally no one else that could even be a serious contender for the top slot from their side of the aisle.

I mean, really. Obama's proven himself a miserable failure, and Hillary has shackled herself to him in a way that won't allow to claim any sort of independence from that failure.

So who else do Democrats have with even an ounce of credibility that didn't vote for ObamaCare, Porkulus, Cap-n-Trade and all the other things that have voters so fired up to vote in November?

Doesn't that pretty much eliminate pretty much every serving Democrat in Congress outside of those Blue Dogs in the House who are likely going to lose their jobs in the fall anyway?

And looking out over the national landscape at the governorships, last I checked their electoral landscape isn't any better than it is at the national level.

So where is there even a POTENTIAL for a solid alternative as VP in 2012 or ready to stand up in 2016 going to come from?

Big Mike said...

@Matthew, I like Paul Ryan. He, almost alone among leading politicians in either party, seems to get economics.

And the proof? Krugman hates him. You need no more proof than that.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Clinton won't run in 2012. It would be a huge FU to the vast majority of blacks who support Obama. She won't risk alienating those people. She would, however, take the VP job to give herself a leg up on 2016.

Jim said...

Big Mike -

Add Mitch Daniels into that mix on the Republican side - a proven popular 2 term governor who "gets it" when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Matthew said...

Hey, Mike, I would have no issue with Ryan, either, I forgot about him.

But he's definitely not the top of the ticket.

Big Mike said...

@Jim, watch Webb. If he follows up his article about race relations with some more common sense offerings, he will be dangerous come 2016. If he plays his cards right he could paint himself as the person who can fix Obamacare.

And by 2016 it will need fixing. In fact, by 2010 it needs fixing, and things will only get worse.

John said...

Two people have mentioned Hilary's "reset" button so far.

She called it a reset button but it was not. A red pushbutton on a yellow background is defined in federal law as an "Emergency Stop" button and may not legally be used for any other purpose.

Look up "hilarys reset button"

and

"emergency stop button"

in Google images.

Or see the Day by Day cartoon for 4/3/10

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/04/03/#005599

John Henry

Seven Machos said...

John -- In my lifetime, there have been eight presidents. Of those, 25 percent were vice president. Another vice president tied for the election in 2000 but lost the tiebreaker. Another vice president won the nomination and lost.

There have only been 44 presidents.

Meade said...

What Jim said about Mitch Daniels.

Seven Machos said...

A red pushbutton on a yellow background is defined in federal law as an "Emergency Stop" button and may not legally be used for any other purpose.

Oh come on. It was a prop.

FormerTucsonan said...

7M is right, VP is a great spring board into the Presidency, but does anyone really think she'd take a back seat to Obama?

She could easily beat him in 2012.

Right now I'd vote for either Hilary or Biden over Obama.

Hell, the only way that Obama might win would be if Michelle ran against him.

Jim said...

Big Mike -

On one hand, I agree with you.

However:

1) He voted for ObamaCare, so he's going to own that - warts and all.
2) While his piece on race might be welcome to centrists, it is likely death in a Democratic primary.

lemondog said...

If the President continues circling the drain, she's still set up pretty nicely for an insurgent campaign in 2012.

You don't think a 2012 successful move by Hillary would potentially alienate the Democrats black base and, in consideration of such, the party would actively frustrate such a challenge?

But would like to see Biden **chortle** do an upgrade.

hawkeyedjb said...

1. Who is it that thinks Hillary has some qualifications or experience relevant to the presidency? Can anyone name any of her accomplishments?

2. "who is going to beat them from Republican side?" Good point. You can't beat something with nothing. You can't even beat nothing with nothing.

Lincolntf said...

The only possible reason for the Administration to even consider (and who knows if they really are?) such a desperate move would be to co-opt the women's vote. Are women, particularly the millions in the Tea Party movement, going to allow themselves to be manipulated like that? I hope not.

Seven Machos said...

1. Who is it that thinks Hillary has some qualifications or experience relevant to the presidency? Can anyone name any of her accomplishments?

Dude. Honestly. She was a Senator from New York and she is the sitting Secretary of State. There aren't 10 people in the country with more relevant experience or more accomplishments. Bad argument.

2. "who is going to beat them from Republican side?"

There are plenty of great potential candidates. Pawlenty. Daniels. Romney. Others I do not like. This is silly. It's not like the Obama campaign is going to be about experience. That's stupid given Obama's lack of credentials before his election.

netsroht said...

I don't see how Hillary helps with the competency issue. Her incompetency in running her campaign is the main reason Obama is president today.

AJ Lynch said...

AllenS:

I think Biden is gone in 2012. They will try and add a guy like Jim Webb with military background and not a far left lib like Biden and Hillary.

Jim said...

No one in the Democratic base can afford to alienate their monolothic support from blacks.

It is their worst nightmare that there would be any inroads made into that voting bloc - hence all the attacks on opposition to their policies as RACISTS!#$!@#!!!

Think about this for a moment:

Obama currently has a 40% approval rating. Blacks make up about 13% of the overall population, and they typically split 90/10 for Democrats. That's a 12% "built-in" advantage for Democrats.

EVEN WITH THAT. Obama only won in a "wave election" by 7 points.

7...in a wave election that swept Democrats to office in huge numbers....after they started with a 12 point advantage.

To put that into perspective, let's just say that if the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't sign off on you being the nominee for the Democratic party, you're not going to be.

Period. No matter how much you may appeal to centrists or anyone else.

That's pretty much the reality of the Democratic Party - like it or not. So it is extremely unlikely that the guy (or gal) who runs to the right (as a Webb or Bayh would) will EVER be victorious in a Democratic primary unless and until the Democratic Party widens its electoral base.

edutcher said...

The Hildabeast, as several have mentioned, has not covered herself with glory and badly bumbled the primary race. The Zero would have to compete with Willie for center stage and, as we know from the guest list at the wedding, there's no love lost.

Hilla was only the front runner because the media anointed her so. She quickly fell apart when the campaigning started.

Besides, dumping Biden would be an admission of failure.

PS Webb voted wrong on all the big issues, has an attitude problem, and has changed parties how many times? If he wanted the top spot, he could have run for it a long time ago.

Lincolntf said...

"she is the sitting Secretary of State."

Which I find endlessly fascinating considering that she was an early and strident proponent of the "WMD's in Iraq" intelligence reports. Also, the fact that she as much as called David Petraeus a liar when he served under Bush, and that's exactly who Obama went to when he was foundering in Afghanistan. This is the woman the Left wants in the Executive Branch?Does anyone think Obama really respects her foreign policy views? Or that he should?

Jim said...

AJ -

Obama may not have that option as the balance of the Senate may swing in the balance depending on how things turn out in the fall. With a Republican governor in Virginia, Obama may not have the option to pluck a Democratic senator out of the state who would be replaced by a Republican.

And even if that's not the case, if I were Jim Webb I'd certainly prefer to keep my powder dry for 2016 than tie my feet with an anchor like Obama.

Scott M said...

I can certainly see Biden getting the axe...along with Romer (already gone), Rahm, and possibly Holder.

Whoever the President gets to replace these people, let's hope they are vetted better than Van Jones, Ron Bloom, and Anita Dunn.
Maybe someone that doesn't think capitalism is a bad joke and that all political power is derived from the barrel of a gun. I'm betting that removes all of the President's closest advisers.

Meade said...

As a moderate, won't Obama need to replace Biden with someone to his left? Someone not from the Midwest?Someone like Nancy Pelosi? Someone to, you know, balance the ticket?

Lincolntf said...

Meade said...

We can rule out Kucinich.

Matthew said...

" You can't beat something with nothing. You can't even beat nothing with nothing."

Oh Dear...Shall we look at who the "Other Side" has to put up against any potential republican challenger?

1. Hillary Clinton - this woman, it goes without saying, will never, ever achieve the WHite House. The reasons are obvious and hardly need to be reiterated here, but they largely begin nd with Bill, and both Clinton's curious relationship with troubling things like...truth, facts and the law.

2. Barack Obama - when you make Jimmy Carter look absolutely brilliant by comparison, you know you're dead in the water. Don't evenbother running for re-election.

3. Nancy Pelosi - Hitler with a bad rash has a sunnier disposition. Ghengis Khan with a raging case of crabs has more grace. Dumber than a sack of hammers, and the favorite of the welfare clases, which should disqualify her immediately.

4. Harry Reid - I wouldn't follow Harry Reid into my own house.I'd rather have Ebola than Harry Reid be my president. He's a sanctomonius blowhole.

5.John Kerry - his only achievemtns are; marrying the widows of wealthier men, managing to actually talk out of both sides of his mouth AND anus simultaneously, and collecting enough self-inflicted gun shot wounds to be sent home from Vietnam. In terms of judgement, he chose John Edwards as a running mate, so need I say more?

He makes the (thankfully-) late Ted Kennedy seem absolutely regal and Senatorial in retrospect.

6. Al Gore - well, if you ever needed somoene with the balls to try and SUE their way into the White House, he's probably your man. If you ever wanted to know what would happen if a complete madman/idiot ever had his finger on the button, give Gore a whirl. It might be entertaining, at least.

You also can't take him seriously; he cries about drowningpolar bears, and then snaps up bargain-rate beachfront property, so you can add "pious hypocrite" to his con column.

rhhardin said...

Biden is the Obama scapegoat, and it picks up Hillary supporters.

Seven Machos said...

Lincoln -- The sitting Secretary of State, the person fifth in line to the presidency itself (or so), is obviously qualified to be president. The fact that you and I may disagree with about the issues or not vote for her is not relevant to qualification for the job.

You can agree that someone is qualified without agreeing to hire her. Surely, you can see this distinction.

Matthew said...

"...and it picks up Hillary supporters...."

HIllary Supporters are largely made up of aging hippies, feminists, welfare queens and the Berkley Faculty lounge -- four groups of people who have NEVER been right about anything in the entire history of the world.

She would still be an upgrade from Il Doofay, but only marginally so.

Scott M said...

@Matthew

1. Hillary Clinton - this woman, it goes without saying, will never, ever achieve the WHite House. The reasons are obvious and hardly need to be reiterated here, but they largely begin nd with Bill, and both Clinton's curious relationship with troubling things like...truth, facts and the law.

I'm not sure this is correct given how close she came in 2008. Honestly, if the other DNC candidate had been John Edwards (shudder), I believe she would have beat him soundly. Hillary is the one political figure I can honestly say I have hate for, as much as I regret having to admit it, but I think she's still in the game enough to believe she could mount a successful insurgent 2012 campaign. I know a lot of Dems that quietly wish she would.

2. Barack Obama - when you make Jimmy Carter look absolutely brilliant by comparison, you know you're dead in the water. Don't evenbother running for re-election.

Agreed, but don't discount the BIG HORRIBLE CRISIS strategy. I and mean BIG and HORRIBLE. Nothing as banal as this little burp in GDP we're currently facing.

3. Nancy Pelosi

As damaged, if not far more so, then Newt Gingrich. She's done in political leadership.

4. Harry Reid

The guy doesn't even know when to vote yes and no without shouts from his underlings. No way.

5.John Kerry Yachtgate has hurt him more than he realizes yet. Not going to be a presidential candidate again, although might drum up enough blueblood support to secure a veep spot.

Lincolntf said...

Seven, surely you can see my point. The woman was awarded a Senate seat from NY as a sop from Party elders, and to capitalize on her proto-reality TV celebrity. Then she was appointed (by everyone's account) to the Cabinet as a sop to her supporters in a purely political move by Obama.
Now, she's 35 years old and a citizen, so that's good enough for me if she chooses to run. But "qualified"? Not in any way, shape or form.

hawkeyedjb said...

@Seven Machos...
"Dude. Honestly. She was a Senator from New York and she is the sitting Secretary of State. There aren't 10 people in the country with more relevant experience or more accomplishments."

Those aren't accomplishments, they are offices. (If getting elected senator is a relevant accomplishment, then Pres. Obama is accomplished.) And being Secretary of State is not the same as accomplishing something in that office.

I've asked this question before, but nobody has ever responded by naming anything Hillary has done.

Hagar said...

Joe Biden is Obama's insurance policy against impeachment.
There will be no substitution.

Matthew said...

Disagree, Scott. The Media largely went out of it's way to cover both Obama's and Edward's shortcomings at her expense.

She would have been the default dem candidate had the media done it's job without the ideological blinders. Then again, if either Obama or Edwards had been asked any actual QUESTIONS by the press,or challenged on any policy, they would have taken themselves out with a solitary HONEST answer.

HIllary Clinton ultimately lost, though, because she made the erroneous assumption that she had "earned" both the nomination and the election.

As for the "Sec. of State" makes her "experienced", as Dick Morris is fond of saying, it's the only real job she's ever held. It's just her misfortune to be holding it under a C-in-C who couldn't find his own backside with both hands and a flashlight.

She's too damaged now to make a successful run now. She'll still try, but it won't work. Running on sympathy can only get you so far, and that's the only weapon in her arsenal.

Seven Machos said...

I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton (unless somebody like McCain stumbles into the nomination). What I'm trying to argue here is that it's stupid to argue that Hillary Clinton hasn't accomplished anything. That argument isn't going to fly with voters you want to persuade. They are going to think what I have said: Senator and Secretary of State is a fine track record.

Stick to the issues, particularly when, as now, the wind is at our back as conservatives and libertarians.

muddimo said...

Setting aside his built-in constituencies, Obama was elected primarily because it gave the enlightened the opportunity to vote for a black person for president. It was all about making enough voters feel good about themselves, not about the merits of the candidate (obviously). It worked, so why not try it again? First female VP--step right up folks, don't miss out--you know you HAVE to do it.
It's all about picking up those critical, extra few percentage points.

Matthew said...

@muddimo

We live in a different world now; even died-in-the-wool-tax-and-spend-not-in-my-backyard-and-only-at-someone-else's-expense democrats will (mostly) vote competence and pocketbook in the next two elections (mid-terms and 2012).

The "D" side of the ledger holds very few people with any sterling credentials in either category, and this shortcoming cannot be overcome with a simple "Historic Gimmick" theme.

muddimo said...

It doesn't matter much who would be a great Republican candidate. They won't get nominated. We'll either get someone profoundly unelectable or someone willing to continue the status quo. For Republican leadership the status quo is pork. The worst thing for them would be to take back Congress. They have no desire to follow a Tea Party-type agenda. They need cover not a mandate to do what they do NOT want to do.

Lincolntf said...

"Stick to the issues, particularly when, as now, the wind is at our back as conservatives and libertarians."

Yes, sir!!

Matthew said...

Who would have been your "Great" republican candidate in the batch that stood in 2008, mud?

If you tellme Duncan Hunter or Sam Brownback, I'll recommend a good psychiatrist to you.

John McCain wasthe worst possible R candidate in 2008, but that's only because the GOOD ones couldn't pass the God-Guns-Gays litmus test of the extreme right. In fact, McCain's only saving grace in those matters were jis combat record and stance on immigration (and even that was arrived at after a series of flip-flops).

Otherwise, the man who brought us Campaign Finance Reform (three lies for the price of one), and the infamous Gang of 14 certainly wasn't a REAL conservative...and barely a republican.

muddimo said...

I see your point but disagree Matthew. I am not so optimistic. Liberals are so easy to lead by the nose. Their politics are so very personal to them and their leadership is cunning. I guarantee you that it will be URGENT that Obama and other democrats be re-elected in 2012. They will pick up this urgency from the 2010 results and build on it.

Mitch H. said...

Shouldn't these tools be concentrating on the midterms right now? Or have they honestly given up trying, and are quietly hoping the opposition takes the Senate so they can "triangulate" & spread the blame around for 2012?

If I were Biden, I'd want to trade in my current running mate for one with more respect for the job than the current goof-off.

muddimo said...

There wasn't a great candidate in 2008. Great does not equal uber social conservative, that's for sure.

Big Mike said...

[I]f I were Jim Webb I'd certainly prefer to keep my powder dry for 2016 than tie my feet with an anchor like Obama.

Sounds like good strategy to me.

My prediction: Biden stays on the ticket. Getting rid of him would have downsides, especially if the Senate moves much closer to 50-50 (as seems likely) and Reid loses (which may happen -- Angle is no dream candidate, but apparently Reid is hated, and I mean hated, by substantially more than 50% of the Nevada electorate).

Scott M said...

Who would have been your "Great" republican candidate in the batch that stood in 2008, mud?

I really liked Fred Thompson, but he certainly turned out not to be the leader I'd hoped. I like Romney enough to hope his wealth of experience can overcome his shortcomings and, frankly, I think there are a good number of idiots that wouldn't have voted for him because of the Mormon thing that will this time around, having seen the alternative.

I'm hoping Cristi in NJ stays in his governership for a full term before considering the big office.

Matthew said...

What Libtards are, above all else, mud are slaves to fashion.

When the cultural mood turns against big government, ObamaCare, the Welfare state, Union Labor, the progressive tax system and all the baggage of the Old Democrat/New Deal/Great Society (because no one can afford it anymore), the vast majority will suddenly find themselves joining the enemy.

It'll happen even faster as the class of "The Rich" is gradually defined downwards to eventually include everyone with 30-cents and a bottlecap in his pocket.

The first weave of defections will come when Baby Boomers can't get federally-funded Viagra and Botox under ObamaCare.

Mark my words...

A Conservative Teacher said...

You've got it backwards- Joe Biden should do a President upgrade and have Hillary in instead of Barack. She'd be bad, but no one could be this bad!

muddimo said...

Whoa, you really are optimistic! The cultural mood is heavily moderated by a liberal hegemony. There will be no huge backlash but maybe just enough to swing enough points to the Republicans. All of the liberals that I know are still firmly in Obama's camp. Their position is that we have to go through the pain to get to the good--and that all the problems we face were created by Republicans anyway. Cue "Stand by Your Man."

Big Mike said...

Matthew's comment at 10:20 got me to thinking. If we go back 34 years to the election of 1976 we have the following candidates for President:

Republicans
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
Robert Dole
George W. Bush
John McCain

Democrats
Jimmy Carter
Fritz Mondale
Michael Dukakis
The Clintons
Al Gore
John Kerry
Barack Obama

One master politician, and one very, very good -- plus lucky -- politician. After that? Anybody besides me think our current system for nominating candidates is broken?

muddimo said...

And yes, Althouse will vote for Obama again, just as surely as she will post another pic of foofoo food taken in a trendy bistro with her Apple product whilst wearing an ensemble primarily featuring the color black. Boomers are exceptionally predictable.

Matthew said...

@Scott,

Yeah, I wasliving in NC at the time of the 2008 primaries, and all the talk amongst the "good" snake-handling baptists was whether God would forgive a vote for a Mormon.

Most were seriously expectinga plague of frogs,should RZomney have won.

But then again, those are exactly the sort of people who voted for a Larry Craig, Cong. Foley (the alleged Congessional, and who sent money to Ted Haggard, so go figure. Worse, most supported those men because Pastor Bob said it was a good idea.

I'm beginning to think Pastors might have a deficiency when it comes to spotting the Devil, you know?

muddimo said...

Good point Big Mike and, yes, that list is pretty depressing. Thanks.

Matthew said...

Yeah Mike, I agree. Also, take a look at that list and try to see how many "real" conservatves and how many "moderate" democrats were on either.

It would be interesting to see if one man's "moderate" is another man's "extremist", too.

Matthew said...

Mud, my optimism springs from the historically-proven theory that only societies which have an over-abundance of wealth and security have the time or energy to devote to stupid concerns like gay marriage, windmills and ensuring that illegal aliens can get free tummy tucks.

Living in a society where economic and physical security are in question, where material comfort is severely constrained by extreme taxation, where the petty details of existance are regulated within an inch of their lives, when you are constantly harrangued by a self-appointed elite about every aspect of your life -- about what you wear,drive,where you live, and what you eat, or even what you are ALLOWED to think -- it doesn't take long to make conservatives out of even die-hard liberals.

stevenehrbar said...

When he runs for reelection, having been President for a few years, he'll have better experience than anyone

George H. W. Bush is still alive, still eligible for a second term, and still well ahead of Obama on relevant experience (4 years as President, 8 as VP, 2 as Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, 1 as Director of the CIA, 1 as Ambassador to China, 2 as Ambassador to the UN).

George Bush 2012!

Kurt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kurt said...

I'm a little puzzled by Big Mike's list and his comment: "One master politician, and one very, very good -- plus lucky -- politician." You can only be talking about Reagan and Bill Clinton, but I'm not sure which one you'd put in which place. I think of Bill Clinton as more of a "politician" than Reagan. Reagan was more of a leader than just a politician, but Bill Clinton was no leader. I suppose one could argue that Reagan was a master politician in that some of the machinery of politics was more hidden from view than it was during the Clinton administration.

As far as the general debate and discussion here, I was never a Hillary fan, but I'm sure I'd be happier today if she and not Obama had been the Democrats' nominee in 2008. With Hillary we would have eventually gotten some version of Hillarcare, but she would have probably learned from Bill's experience and not tried to overreach as much as the Obama administration has done since his inauguration. Ann Coulter may have had a point when she said that in a contest between Hillary and McCain, Hillary would have been the more conservative candidate.

GMay said...

Considering the role the media played in the '08 election, all this discussion is irrelevant.

People on the right don't want Christie to run because they don't want him tagged with the quitter label like Palin. Who drove that message again?

Did Obama finish the term of his one and only elected office prior to the Presidency? Nope, yet strangely he wasn't labeled a quitter.

It's the media stupid.

The current President has proven that qualifications aren't a pre-requisite in the slightest.

Romney's issue isn't that he's a Mormon. I'll vote third party before casting one for him.

The media and the left is far too invested in Obama for them to accept an insurgent Hillary. It would mean they're 'refudiating' their own policies. Not gonna happen. I think she'll resign from SoS and do the lecture circuit.fundraising thing for ahilw, then run in 2016.

Hell, even if she did run in 2012, the Democrats won't implode because their media complex will handle damage control.

Scott M said...

People on the right don't want Christie to run because they don't want him tagged with the quitter label like Palin. Who drove that message again?

In my case, me. Or, rather, I don't want the media to be given such easy to acquire ammo against him. From a citizen's standpoint, though, I'd like to see him finish out a term as governor. He's enacting things that are going to take a couple of years to play out so I would like to see how he handles either the success or failure of those programs. Frankly, I think the guy may just have what it takes. My wife thinks a fat man (he's really more roomy then fat) will never get elected president in this era.

Hoosier Daddy said...

People on the right don't want Christie to run because they don't want him tagged with the quitter label like Palin.

Palin quit after her attempt at running. That's not quite the same as relinquishing the office of governor for the Presidency.

I think Christie needs some seasoning first. Right now he's got a bit too much of the rock star appeal that got us stuck with the current occupant. I like what I see at the moment but lets see how he does.

Hoosier Daddy said...

My wife thinks a fat man (he's really more roomy then fat) will never get elected president in this era.

Dunno about that. My guess is that if we're still at 10% unemployment in 2012, personal appearance won't be much of a factor for the electorate.

Lincolntf said...

Romney is by far the strongest candidate. He has actually accomplished real economic turnarounds on a massive scale. Anyone who thinks that he's a "Socialist" or a "statist", or whatever he's being called lately, is clueless. And anyone who labels MA healthcare as "Romneycare" self-identifies as someone who knows nothing about the issue or how the legislation came to be.
No doubt some dream candidate like Paul "never worked a day in the private sector" Ryan, will get people all tingly, but he's a lightweight's lightweight compared to Romney.

Scott M said...

but he's a lightweight's lightweight compared to Romney.

Plus, Romney was sent down from central casting.

Lincolntf said...

Yeah, being considered "attractive" is only a benefit when the candidate is a pouty-faced pussbag like Clinton or Edwards or Obama.

GMay said...

"I don't want the media to be given such easy to acquire ammo against him."

Again, the media driving the issue. Even right now Christie is far more accomplished and way more credentialed than the current President. And apparently "rock star appeal" was a plus for the current guy.

Once again: media.

"Anyone who thinks that he's a "Socialist" or a "statist", or whatever he's being called lately, is clueless. And anyone who labels MA healthcare as "Romneycare" self-identifies as someone who knows nothing about the issue or how the legislation came to be."

Lincoln, that's a crap argumentative technique. Classic lefty trash and you're better than that. Who called Romney a statist or socialist here? No one. I know enough about how "Romney Care" came about and to me it's apologist. You think Romney wouldn't push national healthcare? I haven't seen him disavow it. Hell, I linked to him supporting quite possibly the most odious aspect of it.

If you have information to the contrary, then offer it up, but don't resort to calling anyone who disagrees with you "clueless" or ignorant.

Seven Machos said...

Romney's state health care law is pretty much identical to Obama's federal health care law.

Lincolntf said...

Romney vetoed (and was overridden) on at least a dozen aspects of the MA health care bill. The Legislature (roughly 80% Dem) repeatedly dictated what the terms of the bill(s) would be, and they repeatedly delivered on their promises to override. What Constitutional remedy did Romney have as Governor? Tell me.
As for his statements in support of aspects, well yeah, that was what the MA population demanded. Deluded or not, upwards of 60% of the population supported a version of the "reform". Of course, it was sold as barely even a tweak of Medicare or S-Chip when it was election time. But to the SEIU types and the other sure to benefit special interests, it was a feast to which the Dems owned all the tickets, to be given out as they pleased. Add the obligatory and countless Cambridge-based studies proving its budget neutrality (or benefit!), and it was a foregone conclusion.
The man knows money, he knows how to make painful cuts, he knows how to work in a 21st century economy. In short, he's not just a lecture hall or dinner party expert. He'd have to be hugely flawed in another area to overcome that advantage in my mind.

edutcher said...

Zero would need somebody competent without the Lefty ideology. Evan Bayh, who's retiring, would be a reasonable choice, but, as I said above, I agree with those who say Halo Joe's going no place (insert punchline).

Big Mike said...

[i]t doesn't take long to make conservatives out of even die-hard liberals.

I disagree -- what you make are Reagan Democrats, but they are conservative only within limits and the die hards will never change. Their ideology didn't fail -- we just didn't throw enough money at their pet problem.

Bruce Hayden said...

I frankly would not be surprised at swapping Hillary! for Biden. When looking at loser VPs over the last 50 years or so, I would put Biden even below Dan Quayle. Biden seems to have already gone through the senior dementia phase. He just can't keep his mouth shut, and whenever he opens it, he embarrasses himself, and therefore his boss.

Surprisingly, Hillary! was able to connect with blue collar Democrats when she was running for President. That was originally, I think, one of the reasons that Biden was put on the ticket. But he is so stupid that he just embarrasses everyone around him.

While I have never been a Hillary! fan, I do think that she has a lot over Joe Biden, and while still making gaffes that her husband wouldn't, she won't make nearly as many as the current VP.

Also, the Democrats may need a woman on the ticket if Sarah Palin is in play. Last time around, it was too late, but with all the Momma Grizzlies this time around, the Democrats may need more than they had last time to attract moderate women. (And, it doesn't help them that Obama is such an out-and-out sexist).

Big Mike said...

@Kurt, I was being obscure deliberately. As to my own opinion? I was a county vice-chair for Reagan in '84.

And I don't think Clinton would have won either election without Perot.

Matthew said...

Romeny's problem in national electoral politics is his religion.

A large segment of the Christian Right in this country will simply NOT vote for a Mormon -- even if he happens to be the obviously-better candidate. A good many will protest to the contrary, I'm sure, but they're not being honest.

Those are the people who kept Huckabee afloat long after his shelf-life had expired, bought GWB's nonsense about Jesus being his favorite "political philosopher", and marched in lock-step with Reagan on banning abortion and putting prayer back in the public schools.

In a Republican primary if you don't make the pilgrimage to Bob Jones U, if you aren't photgraphed with the hot, best-selling preacher du jour, and you aren't a member of one of the more "respectable" Protestant or Born Again sects, you ain't making it through to the general election.

Just count how many prominent Catholic R's get to stand for national office...I rest my case.

A successful primary winner pays heavy lip service to the Religious Right, and then tacks to the center in the general election -- which spawns all the Sean Hannity-type talk about "finding real conservatives". It's s egment of the electorate which gets far too much attention, and weilds far too much power. But then again,it's the easiest-to-manipulate voting block.

And if you think that's bad, the other side is EVEN WORSE. On a good day, the Dimwits can't even decide which of their mind-numbed zombie constituencies gets to drive the car this time around.

(Although the last election did make uspretty certain that (half-)Black Man still outranks Cheated-On-White-Woman on thelist of who's more oppressed and deserving in D circles).

There are so many competing interests on the D side, that only R incompetence and government-subsidized poverty keeps them a viable option.

GMay said...

"What Constitutional remedy did Romney have as Governor? Tell me."

Are you suggesting he doesn't own RomneyCare? I haven't seen him disavow it.

And again, the guy supports mandates regardless of how things went down. He's fucking dead in the water to me and a lot of other people because of crap like that. I don't care how good he is with money with that position on mandates. Fuck him.

One of the biggest issues the electorate seems to have is with government healthcare. What the hell is Romney going to do, some sort of "I was for it before I was against it" response? His reasoning might end up making sense, but the electorate isn't going to have the attention span for it.

The media will drive home the glaring contradiction and I think even Obama could hammer him in a debate on it.

Matthew said...

Well, if I were Romney I would look right into the cameras and say:

"I was wrong. I made major mistakes with state-run healthcare, but I have seen the error of my ways, and I will make every effort to ensure I do not make similar mistakes again, now that I know WHAT NOT TO DO, I think I can say, that I'm fairly certain about WHAT SHOULD BE done. I'm sorry."

A politcian admitting a mistake --and accepting responsibility! -- would be an event on par with the arrival of Halley's Comet.

Imagine how much better things might be for His Heinous Barack I if he simply stopped blaming GWB for everything and looked into his teleprompter and read:

"I am responsible. It is my mistake, and I have learned a very valuable lesson. I'm sorry..."

Lincolntf said...

"Are you suggesting he doesn't own RomneyCare? I haven't seen him disavow it. "

How does a Governor "disavow" something more strongly than by vetoing it?

gk1 said...

I have yet to see anyone plausibly explain what's in it for Hillary? When you see the Titanic sinking, very few people fight to get on it. Wouldn't the likelier scenario be more like R.F.K leaving Johnson's Administration and then running as soon as the time was ripe?

GMay said...

"How does a Governor "disavow" something more strongly than by vetoing it?"

He could start by saying "Stop calling it RomneyCare, I don't support it."

But seriously, considering that he's come out in support of the crappiest aspect of state-managed healthcare, I'm not buying the idea that he opposes it.

And what Matthew said. Something to the effect of "Hey, we tried that and it's failing miserably" might get me to reconsider him. I'm not going to hold my breath.

AJ Lynch said...

In 2012, the voters will be so disgusted they won't care about looks. Hell, there may be a backlash against attractive candidates.

The voters will focus [like a laser] on a candidate's track record for competence, managerial effectiveness and history of prioritizing rationally.

IMO neither Obama nor Hillary can prove to the voters that they have these traits.

bagoh20 said...

Patreus/Ryan 2012

Real Plans - Proven Action

What to do when Hope and Change proves it's inevitable uselessness.

Or

Who you go to when your in a quagmire? They even have Obama's endorsement.

bagoh20 said...

Please not Romney - He ruined his chances with the stroke of a pen on RomneyCare. He is exactly the kind of unsure conservative that has wasted so many chances that have been given to the Republicans.

Newt is unelectable. And another unsure conservative.

The country needs leaders who are clear about what needs done, not experimenters hoping to get lucky, and willing to try anything.

There are clear paths to serfdom or freedom and prosperity. If you are over 50 and have not figured it out yet, national leadership is not your best career choice. Try education, journalism, or writing; and experiment all you want.

Matthew said...

Why, exactly, is Newt unelectable, H20?

I have heard many "conservatives" say that forever, and yet none can ever explain just why -- except to talk about his personal life.

That's the same tactic the very same "conservatives" use to dismiss Rudy Guiliani, btw.

I say we've done things the "real conservatives" way long enough -- and look at where we are. How about shaking it up and selecting some small-government,low-tax, law-and-order, anti-terrorist conservatives who aren't all about frogmarching the abortionists to the gas chambers, for a change?

I'm saying this and I'm PRO-LIFE. It's just time for a change of priorities.

Matthew said...

btw, H20, if you're referringto the Ethics charges against Gingrich they were brought against him by DavidBonior (certainly nopartisan hack and paragon of virtue, he!), ando f the 84 charges...

The House Ethics commitee cleared him of 83 of them. The one (1)remaining charge was referred to the IRS...and the IRS cleared both Newt and the Political organization involved...completely.

Gingrich was, however, constrained to pay for the cost of his own Inquisition.

Big Mike said...

@Matthew, you are perfectly correct, but so what?

Think of the Len Bias scandal that cost Lefty Driesell his coaching job at Maryland.

Len Bias was the second overall pick in the 1986 basketball draft, but he died just days later from a drug overdose. Somehow the death of Bias, which happened after he was no longer a member of his college team, became a scandal that forced his coach to resign. Did the coach have anything to do with Bias getting the drugs? Well, no. In fact, Lefty Dreisell ran a very clean program and the fact that Bias was unused to drugs was both a factor in his death and a strong indicator that Driesell did indeed keep his players clean.

But despite having Bias on his team Dreisell wasn't able to finish higher than 6th in the ACC that year and maryland went out of the NCAA tournament in the 2nd round. And people were starting to think that maybe the game had passed the old coach by. So the Washington Post started writing about "the Len Bias scandal" as being why Lefty had to go. It wasn't his scandal, but how do you fight it? With the truth? Do you think the truth can stop a whispering campaign kept up by a national newspaper?

What does this have to do with Newt? It's really the same thing, isn't it. The Post and the Times will drop remarks about Newt's resignation in the face of his ethics problems, and other MSM mouthpieces will pick up the chorus, and that will be that. The truth? Do you think the members of JournoList and the sort of folks who would hire the members of JournoList care about the truth?

Silly you.

Newt has no chance.

Nor does Sarah Palin, though if forced in 2012 to chose between her and Obama I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. Sometimes the devil you know is bad enough that you prefer the devil you don't know.

If Obama is the Democrats' candidate in 2012 then a Republican will be sworn in come January 2013. I don't know who that person is, but he -- or she! -- is out there and laying the foundation for the run in a very quiet way. Meanwhile the left wastes its fire on Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.

Good.

Kirby Olson said...

But Biden guarantees Delaware!

AllenS said...

Rangel/Waters. They would carry the black vote, and they have experience.

Lincolntf said...

" I'm not buying the idea that he opposes it. "

Then you are deliberately ignorant. Nothing can help you. Others wishing to avoid your fate would be wise to look at the process that produced MA health care reform.
But, in the interest of fairness, what should Governor Romney have done when his vetoes were overridden? Can you answer that basic civics question without sounding like an idiot? Give it a shot.

bagoh20 said...

Why not Newt?

He wants to be liked and could never stand the heat it will take to do the right thing. But as to electability, he just can't get enough people to vote for him for a lot of reasons: personal history, charges, seen as soft by people like me, unattractive, uninspiring, academic talker. Not a doer.

We need proven leaders who look, act and are strong enough to get the productive to follow, and who can stand up to the unproductive who will whine loud and long.

Don't get me wrong, I would vote for Newt over any democrat I know of, but enough would not, and it would be easy to make him into a Repub version of Michael Dukakis.

He just won't win against something like Obama/Clinton.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ralph said...

UNDER THE FULL MANIFESTATION OF THE DEBORAH ANOINTING, GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN COURAGEOUSLY SPOKE OUT ABOUT SHARIA-CREEP IN NEW YORK!!!!

To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks.

TOO MANY POLITICIANS ARE WEAK AND “POLITICALLY CORRECT” IN THE FACE OF TERRORISM TODAY, YET GOVERNOR PALIN CONTINUES TO MINISTER TO AMERICAN UNDER THE POWER OF THE DEBORAH ANOINTING!!!!

NOW, A MOSQUE IS ABOUT TO GO UP AT GROUND ZERO, WHILE 19 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF NEW YORK HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED MARK 16:18 MINISTRY!!!!!!

INDEED, EXCEPT FOR A BRIEF FEW DAYS LAST MONTH, THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A MARK 16:18 FELLOWSHIP IN THE NORTHEAST, AND THERE STILL ARE NO PRAISE AND WORSHIP CENTERS IN THE FULL ANOINTING WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING!!!!!!!!

YET, IN THE COURSE OF AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES' MISSION TO NEW YORK, THIS MINISTRY ENGAGED IN SPIRITUAL WARFARE WITH ISLAMIC MOSQUES, HINDU TEMPLES, RC CHURCHES FILLED WITH IDOLS, RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCHES BURNING INCENSE AND CANDLES TO PAINTINGS, BUDDHIST SHRINES, YOGA STUDIOS, LESBIAN/WICCA HERB SHOPS, DEMOCRATIC CLUBHOUSES, TAROT, SANTERIA, FENG SHUI, BLARNEY STONES, BOTANICAS, AOH, WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES “PROTESTANTS”, KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, THE U.N. AND COMMUNIST BOOKSTORES!!!!!!

TERRIBLE!!!!! HARROWING!!! HEART-WRENCHING!!!!

IT IS NO WONDER, THEN, THAT THESE IGNORANT SOULS PICKED PIAPS AS THEIR SENATOR!!!!

bagoh20 said...

I'm a social liberal, but the problem with Republicans is not their social conservatism, it's their fiscal liberalism. I expect to win in 2012, and I don't want another Bush I or II-type pussy of a conservative. I don't want compassion, I don't want thoughtfulness, or balance. I want principles pushing change and action toward reducing government. That is the root of all our evils.

Conservative principles are the essence of compassion, intelligence and balance. Conservatism is those things in action, not in rhetoric, or style; but in substance and result.

This country will survive with nothing less, and prosper like never before if we finally elect such leaders.

bagoh20 said...

"THESE IGNORANT SOULS PICKED PIAPS AS THEIR SENATOR!!!! "

I had to look that up. I thought it was a typo for Priapus.

That's the problem with all caps - when you really need them, you got nothing left.

AllenS said...

I had to look it up also. Here it is:

PIAPS: this is the acronym used to describe Hillary Clinton. It stands for "Pig In A Pants Suit."

HT said...

There just must be a coterie of devoted or fanatic friends of Hillary. A lot of people thought she was gonna be the nominee in 2008 and were shocked and bitterly bit ter ly disappointed. So my guess is it's those people.

Having said all that, Joe Biden is just an embarrasment to Barack Obama and to the president's supporters. How in the world can you not be embarrassed by him? I am. He's a walking talking disaster. I supported Obama in the primary but not in the general, all because of FISA, but Joe Biden didn't sweeten the pot at all.

But at this point, it probably won't happen - a switch. I would be for it under very very careful and well thought out circumstances, but forget Hillary. Geez, just do something and stick with it a couple of years how about it? I'll never understand what was wrong with being senator.

No, it'll have to be someone besides Hillary.

Matthew said...

Sorry, Big Mike and H20. I'm still for Gingrich.

In fact,I was for Newt in 2008 and everyone told me I was crazy. I guess it doesn't look so in retrospect, does it?

Could you imagine a Gingrich/Obama debate? Gingrich/Hitlery? He'd wipe the floor with both of them, and make the case for conservatism easily.

Another Contract With America deal, this one focused on economics, industry, immigration, security and energy would be a nice thing, too.

In addition, you're talking about a historian who can bring some unique perspective to the office, and not to mention the fact that he was Speaker of the House (and a 10-term Congressman): if anyone knows the rocks and shoals of the legislative process, how to present it, how to sell it, how to getit enacted, he does.

I don't buy the "guilt by association" meme vis-a-vis Newt because it never affected Clinton, and it for damn sure didn't stick to Obama.

Yes, the Media will play that sort of thing up, but this isn't the OLD media we're talking about anymore.People don't give a crap about what Katie Courc and CNN have to say, anymore. They come here, or Instapundit, and places like that for their information/debate.

I also don't buy the "I wanna be loved by all" theme, either. You'd be hard-pressed to name a R that drives Leftards battier than Gingrich (other than Dick Cheney, perhaps).

As for "proven leaders" I'm pretty certain looking over the current crop -- on both sides -- that is a near-extinct species, and short of resurrection, there ain't another Reagan or Moynahan coming our way.

Big Mike said...

@Matthew, I'll stand by my analysis. You're absolutely right that he'd mop the floor with Obama in a debate, even the sort of faux "debates" that the MSM folks ran for him back in the 2008 campaigns for the nomination and for the presidency (so bad that SNL mocked them).

But it won't matter because he'd lose.

You're urging people to come off of Romney on electability issues, but Gingrich has worse issues.

Dead Julius said...

I don't think it looks desperate at all. The end of a first Presidential term is the logical time to create a better team, and Biden simply hasn't been up to snuff. His gaffes are awful; and what exactly does he do all day anyway? Get a day job, Joe.

Besides, the second term is the time to worry about succession. And if there is another potential elected monarch waiting anywhere in America, he or she should get in line behind the lady from Chappaqua. Clinton called dibs on the throne long ago.

Seven Machos said...

To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks.

Can there be a synagogue there? A Presbyterian Church? Why not a mosque that is the brain child of someone who wants to work for pluralism with Christians and Jews?

To build a mosque at Ground Zero is to honor and respect the fact that we have millions of law-abiding, patriotic Muslim Americans in this country, and the fact that there are hundreds of millions of moderate Muslims in the world. A long-term war against all of Islam is senseless. Islam didn't bomb the World Trade Center any more than some crazy Christian sect invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

And for fuck's sake, what's with the bold?

Milwaukie guy said...

Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryan.

wv: irelaxol: getting the Irish outtya.

Matthew said...

"You're urging people to come off of Romney on electability issues, but Gingrich has worse issues."

Actually, my argument has been that both have gotten a raw deal from conservatives, and yet, they'd probably be better candidates than anyone else you might think of.

If only they could get past the self-appointed hall monitors on the right...

bagoh20 said...

"A long-term war against all of Islam is senseless. "

Tell them that, we don't want it. But Muslims keep demanding it. The people building the mosque are not who you wish they were.

The fact that most Christians are peaceful and moderate would never justify a church being built by force of law against public opinion next to the site where crusader's killed thousands of Muslims. It was done in the distant past, but we now consider it pretty barbaric and no way to treat your fellow citizens in a free nation just because you can legally.

The Mosque is legal, but completely immoral and disgusting.

bagoh20 said...

"they'd probably be better candidates than anyone else you might think of." You need to think harder. Open your mind, man.

Obama has widened the field. All kinds of disqualifying qualities are now OK. What's he gonna say? "That guy is inexperienced. Look at how bad I was." Or, "He's too extreme, I should know."

The field has grown immensely.

BTW, I have no idea how to punctuate what I just wrote. Sorry.

HT said...

Milwaukie guy said...

Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryan.

___

I don't know who Mitch Daniels is, but whenever I hear Paul Ryan speak, I am very impressed and scared for Obama. I'm not sure why he wouldn't run (if he's not). He is an extremely impressive person, the little I've heard.

But then again, I thought the same thing of Eric Cantor of Va but he kind of fizzled.

Seven Machos said...

Bag -- Muslims aren't demanding a war with the United States. You don't see a lot of people in Indonesia demanding such a war, just for example, or Turkey, or Uzbekistan, or Albania, or even the majority of normal schmucks in Iran.

No, only a fraction of crazy-ass Muslims are demanding war with the United States.

It's wrong for us to equate Islam with Al Qaeda just because Al Qaeda claims to represent some true version of Islam. We should be doing our level best to rip the two apart.

Big Mike said...

@Matthew, it's not that hard to get past the "hall monitors."

iraqi dinar said...

Newspaper observations: Forget inscrutability! The difficulty is administration (Scott Rosenberg) makes me conjecture what the Boston papers are doing with their remarks sections, if Rosenberg's submission is on. Is anyone surveillance the store?

<a href="http://dinariraqi.net>Dinar Iraqi</a>

deborah said...

If Hillary's asked, she should take it, because if Webb is asked and he takes it, Hillary's only prayer is if they lose, then she can go against the winner in '16. In other words, she would lose against Webb in the '16 primary

I think Webb is gunnin' for something with the angling for racial harmony and fairness. He may have baggage...loose cannon, sexism in the '80s, but he has a lot to offer...military experience, straight shooter, etc.

Debbie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew said...

"@Matthew, it's not that hard to get past the "hall monitors.""

I know...all you have to do is tell them what they want to hear...and then listen to them cry, moan, gnash their teeth and threaten to vote "Third Party" for the next four years because the Rapture hasn't occurred yet.

Or are we talking about a different set of hall monitors here?

Maguro said...

Why not a mosque that is the brain child of someone who wants to work for pluralism with Christians and Jews?

Uh huh. Now, why would such a well-intentioned and culturally sensitive person choose to site their "Tolerance & Understanding Mega-Mosque" at that particular location, knowing full well the reaction it would produce? Hmmm?

GMay said...

lincolntf said: "then you are deliberately ignorant. Nothing can help you. Others wishing to avoid your fate would be wise to look at the process that produced MA health care reform.
But, in the interest of fairness, what should Governor Romney have done when his vetoes were overridden? Can you answer that basic civics question without sounding like an idiot? Give it a shot."


Oh, you want to go this route. No problem!

Take your sorry ass back upthread to where I posted a link that showed that Romney supports mandates. Did you get that part? Do you fucking know what mandates are? Do you understand that's one of the most unpopular aspects of state run healthcare?

Don't talk to me about ignorance when you obviously don't know fuckall about your boyfriend's current positions on the subject. Here's a hint: process has fuckall to do with it.

GMay said...

7M said: "We should be doing our level best to rip the two apart."

Sweet, I've finally found something I can disagree with 7M on.

First off, no way in hell is anyone going to rip radical Islamists away from the moderates. The whole religion is too insular to let outsiders do that in any way.

Secondly, while very few Muslims have declared war against the U.S., you only need to look at the borders of entrenched Islam to recognize a clear and present global danger. Without exception, there is Islamic motivated violence/terrorism in every direction that religion is expanding. Indonesia, the Phillipines, Central Asia, NW India, the Caucasus, the Balkans, Central Africa, Israel (of course), and to an increasing degree - Western Europe.

The only thing preventing that violence (excepting 9/11) from creeping over here is their inability to project their power. But it is the fastest growing religion. What power it can't project is made up for in its willingness to use liberal democracies' (in the classical sense) own principles against them.

Islamic-incited violence is only going to get worse.

Seven Machos said...

Let me put this another way. In order to beat radical Islam, we are going to have to work with moderate Islam.

Another way to think about it: in order to save Islam, we are going to have to save moderate Islam from radical Islam. I know this country, and I know how we felt on September 11, 2001. There can't be many more days like that until Mecca goes the way of Nagasaki.

GMay said...

7M,

Divorcing the two is not going to happen. At least not with outside help. Maybe if they had their own rough equivalent of a Reformation of sorts, but until then - not a chance.

Islamic influence is growing worldwide, and the deeper inside the Caliphate you go, the more they're abandoning any form of moderation. (Follwing that link LauraW posted over at Ace's strikes me as a good example.)

Even Turkey, that paragon of secularism within the borders of Islam is dealing with a rise in radicalism.

I understand what you're saying, but if you ask the magic 8-ball whether or not your plan will work...all signs point to 'No'.

Seven Machos said...

Iran right now.

Also, though I know this thread isn't really the place for this discussion, Iran, which is Shia, and the Arab world, which is Sunni, simply do not get along. They will never join forces. It's not a Protestant v. Catholic thing, either. It's more like a Moscow v. Berlin thing. Indonesia is another story entirely. Albania another. Albania is the only country where you can get laid for being American.

deborah said...

"Also, though I know this thread isn't really the place for this discussion, Iran, which is Shia, and the Arab world, which is Sunni, simply do not get along. They will never join forces."

They might, long enough to go crazy on our asses. E.g., if we bomb Iran.

Matthew said...

Sorry, 7M, but you're wrong.

For there to be peace between Islam and the West, it requires a cultural change that can only be brought about by decisive conflict, and only when one side unquestionably defeats the other.

Islam,like Communism or National Socialism,cannot tolerate a rival system of thought, or any system which appears to offer a better way of life to 'the Faithful'. All potential rivals must be eliminated.

The reason why Khomeini refered to the United States as the 'Great Satan'; was not because we're inherently EVIL because Satan as the embodiment of evil is a Western invention.

Islamic tradition holds that Satan is more of a silver-tongued deceiver sent to persuade the believer to leave the path of righteousness.

The 'deception',in this case,is the material wealth and libertine nature of Western civilization. If left to their own devies and not kept in a state of constant terror, most Muslims would opt for in a New York minute, and there would be no more Islam,andnoplace for the Khomeinis of the world.

Add some generic racism and nationalism for flavor, and stir.

Jus as the Nazis,Commies, and Japanese Militarists denounced the "decadent" West, our constant quest for unbridled hedonism, and preoccupation with wealth, so to do the Muslims. They've all compared their relatively austere virtues against ours, and found us wanting (always the first mistake).

We know what happened to theNazis, Japanese and Soviets, don't we? Nazi Germany had to be bombed flat and it's armies defeated in the field. Japan had to be nuked. The USSR had to be bankrupted, an d great suffering inflicted, before people began to question the aspects of their culture that had brought them to that point.

Germany and Japan quite easily adapted (germany because it had already had a tradition of democracy, Japan because the Western way had shown itself to be clearly superior), and neither country today exports terror and suicide bombers like they once did, do they?

It will have to be the same for Islam.

Revenant said...

I can't see Hillary going for President in 2012. Obama isn't nearly unpopular enough with Democrats for that to work.

Then again, it might work as a setup for 2016. Assuming the economy still sucks in 2012 (safe bet), the Republican will win. If things aren't much better in 2016 (also a safe bet) she can run on the "see, you should have picked me to begin with" ticket. :)

GMay said...

"Albania is the only country where you can get laid for being American."

Never spent any time in Australia then I see.

Lincolntf said...

"Here's a hint: process has fuckall to do with it."

In other words, you have no understanding of how MA health care came about. You know zero about the decades building up to the Romney era "reform". You can't name a single person who contributed to it, can you? You have no idea the leaders in the Legislature at the time, or their motives, campaign promises or years of groundwork laying, do ya'? You know zero about the "mandate" that Romney was elected with. But other than that, it's an issue you care deeply about. I lived in MA for his entire tenure as Governor (and the thirty years prior to that), and the conventional wisdom about Romneycare is a joke.
Romney rubs some people the wrong way for some reason, and "Romneycare" is an easy buzzword to rely on if someone asks why.
He's by far the best candidate for 2012, and the fact that the reason people cite to disqualify him is a mish mash of ignorance, disinfo. and stubborness only helps his credibility.

jamboree said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jamboree said...

There's been a lot of regret among some dems and indies that they didn't go with Hillary - that she would have better dealt with the insurance companies, etc. The older women are still very pissed off she wasn't chosen the first time around - that includes some like my republican mother who said "she's smarter than both of them (Palin/Obama) put together. She shouldn't accept Secretary of State. She shouldn't lift one finger for him." Having her as VP would neutralize it. No one would be happy, but it wouldn't give that urge any way to express itself.

I say this as someone who voted for her in the primaries.

PS: I apologize for the atrocious form of my posts (but not for their atrocious content ). I'm always a bit lazy when it comes to proofreading, but this claustrophobic little blogger posting box just drives me nuts. It's like I can't bear to be in it any longer than absolutely necessary.

GMay said...

Lincolntf continued: "In other words, you have no understanding of how MA health care came about."

In other words you can't fucking read worth a shit.

Someone said they weren't going to vote your boyfriend and you threw reading comprehension out the window and chose to advance your argument instead of addressing mine.

Did you even bother to click on the link in the post to which you responded? Do you know what I'm fucking talking about when I say "mandate"? Because in your latest misfire you're talking about the wrong kind of mandate dumbass.

Let me know if I need to break it down line by line.

Tom DeGisi said...

The fastest thing Barack Obama could do to improve the government of this country would be to resign. The coverage limit of the Biden insurance has been exceeded.

Yours,
Tom

Seven Machos said...

Matthew -- As long as you've violated Godwin's Law, I find it suspect when someone, like you, lumps together an entire religious group with many different sects living in many different countries under many different kinds of government.