In a recent poll, Romney edges out Obama in 2012. What really surprised me is that Huckabee and Obama are almost tied in the poll. Palin didn't fair as well. I hope she takes this to heart! Did you read what Mama Bush said about Palin? "She seems happy in Alaska - I hope she stays there."
Are we really going to elect another President who doesn't believe in evolution, even as a process, even though he has his doctor change his antibiotics every year he gets sick to fight antibiotic resistance...which is evolution itself? Really? This guy thinks that donkeys talk and you can live inside of a fish for 3 days. Come on people!
That is pretty interesting. Huckabee seems like a decent guy, but I don't think he has enough money to compete.
Romney and Huckabee? Oh god. As if the Republican party didn't look bad enough -- here we go.
And that's coming from a righty.
Who do you want to run, EPman? Whatcha think about Jindal?
Never even heard of Jindal until now -- thanks for bringing him to my attention.
I am a Ron Paul fanboy.
Bobby Jindal was on my short list or McCain VP
I think Huckabee has the best chances overall, mostly because he has clout with the enormous evangelical base and he's a southerner.
Mitt Romney - let's just say he's my favorite candidate (among the GOP, of course), and I'm a liberal. That would sink his chances right there. Besides, he's Mormon and evangelicals will not vote for him for that reason alone.
Ron Paul is a fringe candidate that only appeals to libertarians.
Jindal is devoid of charisma and natural speaking ability, and, well, his foreign origin might be objectionable to the Tea Partiers who obsess about Obama's Kenyan lineage.
Hi, Livelonger! I really like Huckabee, but I wish he weren't so far right. I think Mitt would be good for the economy, but he's changed his mind on several issues, so that might hurt him. Jindal is super smart and seems to be a good manager, and it would be nice to have an Asian-American in the WH.
My biggest hope is that Palin doesn't run!
I agree - Romney pivoted to the center too early, but he also has a liberal record from Massachusetts which would kill him in today's national GOP which has gone much further to the right.
Jindal might be bright and a good technocrat, but he unfortunately lacks the charisma you must have to run for Pres, and frankly, there are a LOT of conservatives that don't share your enthusiasm for having an Asian-American in the WH. (Those would be Palin's "Real American" supporters...those who live and breathe resentment towards everyone who isn't exactly like them)
I'd characterize Romney's record as moderate, not liberal. I guess he's liberal compared the the rest of the potential candidates.
Yes, sorry for not clarifying: liberal by national GOP standards.
"RomneyCare" would kill his chances for the Pres alone.
Of course you would Ralph, your a Liberal! (NO INSULT INTENDED)
I guess its relative. I plead guilty to being a liberal and a yellow dog Democrat.
Yes, it's all relative. Sometimes it's hard to remember that. Especially in times where identity politics are playing a bigger role than actual issues.
You've captured the mood among most conservatives perfectly - identity politics over policy.
Your statement is even more profound, as many conservatives would say the same for liberals. We are caught in a "I know you are, but what am I" scenario.
Well, let's use Obama as an example.
With respect to his ethnicity, (perceived or real) religion, and (perceived or real) socioeconomic status, most of the people who voted for Obama did NOT share these things with him. Identity politics had little to do with how Obama got elected.
However, on the right, the current rock-star is a woman whose supporters all but completely share her ethnicity, her religious beliefs, and her (perceived) socioeconomic status. Her repeated invocations of "Real Americans" - as people who share a similar identity to her, a group of people that oddly feel they've been mistreated and who are seething with resentment, much like her - point to her exploitation of identity politics.
The left is a broad coalition of different ethnicities, faiths, socioeconomic backgrounds, sexual orientations, etc. The right is almost singularly white, Christian, working-class and straight.
"With respect to his ethnicity, (perceived or real) religion, and (perceived or real) socioeconomic status, most of the people who voted for Obama did NOT share these things with him. Identity politics had little to do with how Obama got elected"
Maybe, it was the historical relevance. His election could also be described as a rejection of the previous regime. Especially since the opposition candidate was seen as an extention of the previous regime.
Time will tell. There were a lot of promises made. I believe the ones that brought the most votes had to do with the wars and the economy. Those issues are still out there.
Sure. But that's not identity politics.
The right, however, is eager to (successfully) exploit identity politics.
identity politics: "Political attitudes or positions that focus on the concerns of social groups identified mainly on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation"
I think we agree on WHAT identity politics are. The disagreement is; that one side is "worse" than the other when it comes to it's application. You infer that the right is the worst offender. I tend to believe that both play the game equally.
That is your belief. It isn't supported by reality. Feel free to correct me with actual, real-world examples of how present-day Democrats have exploited identity politics to the same degree that present-day conservatives have.
I can go on and on with the scare tactics used regarding these "Benifit" programs. Programs funded by the majority and targeted towards the minority. All created by Democrats. The only benifit they have provided is to Democrats. Who have used them to enslave an ill educated lower class.
Too many liberals are obsessed with "SOCIAL JUSTICE" at the expense of "MATERIAL SUCCESS". The opposite can be said of Conservatives. WHAT WE NEED IS BALLANCE.
I find that liberal and conservative "ACTIVIST" are the biggest roadblocks in politics.
Hardcore liberal policies, no mater how well intentioned tend to be destructive, long term.
Hardcore conservative policies often tend to ignore real problems.
These are matters of policy. They are not matters of identity politics.
The fact that you're quick to characterize them as benefiting only minorities speaks to the fact that conservative identity politics, where the majority feels resentment towards minorities, is working.
The were sold to the American Public as "Equalizers". They are not. They are cradle to grave entitlement programs that are bankrupting our country.
You fail to see the connection. If a party creates policy TARGETED towards a specific demograhic, its engaging in identity politics. Even worse creating a legacy of political pawns.
Do not serve any particular ethnic, religious, gender, or sexual orientation identity.
Again, you are misusing the term identity politics.
Of course they do. The poor, aged and other measurable minorities. These entitlement programs pay out primarily to poor people who are more times than not minorities, single moms or aged.
Yes, I understand. You're against policy that could benefit people who are more likely to not have the same ethnic or gender identity as you.
Which underscores my original point: conservatives are swayed by identity politics more than liberals.
No, I'm against using tax dollars that are spent with complete disregard of the constitution.
Liberals love collectivism. Your group is more diverse, but does that mean that your united? I see a group that is gathered by a group who promises everything, delivers nothing and destroys us all.
You're going off topic...a topic you brought up.
Hardly, simply responding to your comment:
"Yes, I understand. You're against policy that could benefit people who are more likely to not have the same ethnic or gender identity as you."
My whole point is that politicians have created policy that creates political slaves out of specific groups of people. All in the name of compassion.
Ron Paul is becoming more mainstream, don't you think?
He is a symbolic figure to the libertarian half of the tea party.
The Federal Reserve is also becoming a core issue -- one which Ron Paul has been way ahead of the game on. This has helped his fame, and may continue to do so as the years come.
Lol, as a Ron Paul supporter I'm obviously unwilling to accept him as a "fringe" candidate. But all biases aside I truly do believe he's growing steadily in popularity.
I actually support more of his economically-conservative ideas more than that of the socially-conservative ideas of the other people mentioned.
But economic conservatives & libertarians are numerically tiny in this country. I think Paul only had the support of about 5% among Republicans nationwide. Maybe he can pretend to be a social conservative like his son has done.
I can't get past his history with white supremacists. That is just too much.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims
- Ron Paul, 2002
Okay, maybe a simple quote won't do much to persuade you, but these accusations towards Ron Paul really are mudslinging politics.
There was a newsletter under Paul's name that used outside volunteers. This is the publication where the racist comments were made. They were not made my Ron Paul himself. You can even tell in the voice of the writing that it sounds nothing like him. I know that isn't the most compelling case to make, but it is certainly noteworthy.
Look, racism is in opposition fundamentally to everything Ron Paul has been working to achieve in Congress for years. He has decades of recorded speeches, YouTube videos, and votes that are free from racist implication. He is a close ally with the NAACP, and the chief in his district came to Ron's aid in defending him as someone who certainly is not a racist when these hogwash accusations began.
If you don't agree with him on the issues, that's cool. But I strongly suggest you give him another shot if your only reason for not liking him is this alleged racial comment.
I like Jindal. His lack of speaking ability is over stated. Much like Palin, he was tossed to the piranhas in the liberal media before proper preparation. It is not the substance, it is the form. Huckabee and Romney both can be rejected as liberal Republicans. If Steve Forbes looked like Mit Romney he would have been unbeatable years ago when he made a run.
Tim Pawlenty's name has been bounced around for a while. From Indiana Mitch Daniels and Mike Pence have been mentioned, though Daniels disavows any interest in running. Newt is damaged by his inability to get out of his own way. The 2012 Presidential field is pretty wide open in the Republican Party and, if President Hussein - I mean - President Shining Handsome - I mean - President Banana Pudding Overhand Claw Hammer ( I am having trouble deciding what I should call him given some people get so offended so easily) If BHO continues his secret melt downs and the political damages continue to pile up the Democrat field may also be open.
Jindal has the speaking charm of Peewee Herman.
Huckabee can't run because he was a sucker for any convict who claimed he was 'born-again'. The release rate from Huckabee pardons was higher than those of six surrounding states combined. Some of the felons he pardoned were later caught and convicted of serial rapes and mass murders. Not just one or two, either. If he runs, the foolish decisions he made as governor will be hung around his neck.
Romney passed a state version of Obamacare and he lets the polls dictate his policies, He's taken as many positions as a weather vane. It just depends on which way the wind is blowing.
Ron Paul is a fringe candidate with a fringe following. He won't win in a showdown against the evangelicals of the Tea Party.
Ron Paul is the only consistent person in congress. It's disgusting to hear him described as a fringe candidate.
Maybe that's why he's a fringe candidate, which is more an expression of the level of his support (single digits) than a reflection of my feelings towards him.
In order to command larger support, you have to court people beyond your specific views. As I said earlier, if he panders to evangelicals, he will garner more support, as has his son.
I do not see mainstream America endorsing Ron Paul.
Romney has the wrong religion. Palin is her own sword.
Jindel talks too fast. I don't know enough about Huckabee.
no one that I see right now in the GOP is POTUS material.
I would really like to see a candidate that can talk with some substance and not sound like a political ad. I think we all are tired of the ranting and raving.
well, maybe not all, as I see some thrive on that kind of 'rhetoric'.
funny what mama Bush said. I saw that too.
Hmmm...how about the guy who got 4 million kids health care, who stabalized the worst economy in recent history in under 2 years, reinvested in our infrastructure for the first time since Eisenhower, began actually targeting Al Queda rather than just shooting at anyone shooting at us, is stimulating the regulatory bodies that presided over the worst oil spill in history and 4 of the worst 10 mining disasters in history, all occurring in the last 10 years? How about the guy who actually thinks? How about the guy already there who could do wonders if the Republicans in the Senate would stop blocking every single move, even if it is their own idea, the second Obama endorses it. These jerks are acting like kids and the ignorant of the country are eating it up. The problem isn't Obama. The problem is that half of the country is legally retarded.
I'd vote for him. Unfortunately when the media dog piles you and your own party doesn't defend you...YOUR DONE as far as presidential politics are concerned.
Ron Paul could do a lot of good for this country. He would end the wars. He would SLASH spending. He would audit the FED. All good things. Too bad, there is not another candidate(that's electible) that would go to washington and do just that.
He'd legalize pot, too, which is a good thing, IMO.
I'm not sure if that would do us a whole lot of good right now. The idea that legalizing pot would somehow generate endless wealth is a fallacy IMO. The drug lords are not going to let us just steal their cash cow. They are NOT going to pay taxes either. I do agree the War on Drugs is a huge waste of resources.
I do agree with you here.
as far as the sink or swim when someone is in trouble, I disagree that it benefits all. not only do those that sink not benefit, but neither do the rest of us.
there is no easy answer, but the GOP mantra of make the rich richer is definitely not of benefit to all. what a fantasy.
Personally I would like to see Jindal or Pawlenty get the nod for the GOP nomination.
Whatcha got against Huckabee? I like Jindal, but I don't know much about Pawlenty.
Too close to Fox. He would excite the left more than the right.
Huckabee is on Rupert Murdoch's payroll along with Palin and Gingrich. Plus he's a social conservative evangelical Christian underneath his genial smile and soft spoken manner.
so please tell us the balanced way to approach these policies. keep in mind that if you eliminate them, it is no longer balanced.
I'm sure many of us would like to hear some rational discussion.
Thats off topic. I'm not going to deviate any further. Suffice it to say that I don't believe the government has any right to collect a tax from me for the express purpose of redistribution. Obviously you do.
You don't have a candidate for the GOP do you?
I don't think it's deviating from the topic at all. these are policies that benefit a large segment of the population and will continue to increase with an aging population. the programs need to be fixed, not eliminated.
a candidate for the GOP? I don't see one. and I'm not a republican. but I'm watching to see how it happens.
The government is not supposed to assure outcomes, only opportunities. Creating "Ballance" as you define it, is up to the individual when it comes to level of success. So to say that the policies are sacred and can only be modified vice abolished is, in my opinion, a flawed idea.
Now, because these programs have been in existance for so long. I do believe we need to be "weened" off of them.
Social Security. I believe we should allow people to opt out, once vested. Further all applicants for benefits should be means tested. State and local governments should be allowed to exempt it's employees if they have their own pension plans.
Medicare. Same as above.
Unemployment. This should be left completely to the States.
There will allways be hard luck cases. These should be handled at the local and state level. Federal programs only encourage people to remain in areas where there may be no opportunity for them. States should handle this.
All of this will take away the "easy" answer. Once the person in trouble has to sink or swim, we all benefit.
by Susan Reid7 years ago
Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have both been suspended by Fox News. The suspension is for 60 days. If they don't announce their candidacy for president during this time, they can come back.Now, Mike Huckabee and Sarah...
by icountthetimes6 years ago
Do you think there's still a chance that someone other than Romney or Gingrich will emerge and become the Republican nominee. Both Romney and Gingrich both have good, but not spectacular levels of support, and there is...
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
The eminent essayist, author and political commentator Charles Krauthammer posited that the ongoing persistence of the disaster that is ObamaCare, could or would start the unraveling of American Liberalism...
by AnnCee7 years ago
By Michael O'Brien - 07/30/10 10:45 AM ETFormer House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said Friday that he expects former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) to be among the crowd of GOP presidential candidates in 2012.Gingrich,...
by David Stillwell5 years ago
As voters, Why are we excepting either Romney or Obama as presidential candidates for 2012.The argument over leadership and leadership abilities, lost job, jobs sent overseas, economic policy, foreign policy, national...
by Josh Ratzburg2 years ago
How in the HELL does Donald Trump lead in the Republican primary polls?People who support him have to be trolling, right?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.