A list of people I'm not excited about and I will not support for President in 2012...

Mitt Romney
--It's my opinion that Mitt Romney would be willing to say anything, or take ANY possible position to get elected. He's changed his views on almost EVERYTHING over the years. I never liked the guy all through 2007 and 2008. He reminds me of a used car salesman.

Mike Huckabee
--Mike Huckabee is right where he belongs. Hosting a TV show cracking jokes and playing music with celebrities. He's a funny guy who has personality, but it's not what we need. One of the biggest things that pissed me off about the mainstream media and 2008 primary season happened with Huckabee. In one of the later debates just before the Iowa vote, all the GOP candidates were allowed to name a federal department or program they would get rid of. Huckabee said "Let's get rid of the IRS" and the crowd cheered like crazy. The mainstream media pushed this like crazy and all the post debate experts praised Huckabee saying he had the best line of the night. Huckabee went on to win Iowa, the first state.

What no one in the mainstream media bothered to point out, is that RON PAUL had said the same thing in several of the prior debates. The only difference is Paul's thirty year record of NEVER VOTING TO RAISE TAXES, and Huckabee's record as Arkansas Governor, where he not only made no effort to get rid of the state income tax, but he raised taxes.

Newt Gingrich
--Newt would be better then a lot of the people I name here. However I have to say his recent endorsement of a liberal congressional candidate over a conservative (Doug Hoffman) has shown his true colors. Newt is clearly more interested in party over principle and that type of behavior (coming from Bush) is what delivered us Obama in the first place.

Tim Pawlenty
--I'm just not inspired by the guy. It bothers me that the media has been pushing this guy since 2005 to run for President. I'm not sure why. He hasn't really accomplished anything.

Sarah Palin
--I like Palin in general, but I think 2012 is not the year for her. Still too much leftover negative coverage. I think it's entirely possible she'll never run for office again, even though many people in the media will not shut up about her. I also think every liberal's biggest fear is the possibility that she'll run. Imagine how defeated they would feel if she beat Obama.

Each of these above named people are being propped up by the mainstream media on a regular basis and will be pushed into the faces of Americans as "potential Presidential Candidates" over the next two years.

If dealt the same hand above, the response is almost verbatim from here as you describe.

The outcomes of the two races for governor in both NJ and VA will serve as minor referendums on the future direction of their respective state’s government compared to the tangible results being measured today since last November’s elections. More telling on a national level regarding the future direction of the Republican Party will be the winner of the congressional seat from Upstate New York. Should the conservative candidate be victorious, the ideals forming the reasons why should be taken to heart if the desire is to be competitive with the party in power.

Rock star status is not the exclusive territory of leftward leanings. Fiscal and social conservatism can co-exist when one of the fundamental underpinnings each shares is responsibility. Because she has the these bona fides and the excited state of fear elicited from the crowd most concerned only with the self reflection, Sarah Palin if anything, remains a rock star.

quote:

Originally posted by Exo:
If dealt the same hand above, the response is almost verbatim from here as you describe.

The outcomes of the two races for governor in both NJ and VA will serve as minor referendums on the future direction of their respective state’s government compared to the tangible results being measured today since last November’s elections. More telling on a national level regarding the future direction of the Republican Party will be the winner of the congressional seat from Upstate New York. Should the conservative candidate be victorious, the ideals forming the reasons why should be taken to heart if the desire is to be competitive with the party in power.

Rock star status is not the exclusive territory of leftward leanings. Fiscal and social conservatism can co-exist when one of the fundamental underpinnings each shares is responsibility. Because she has the these bona fides and the excited state of fear elicited from the crowd most concerned only with the self reflection, Sarah Palin if anything, remains a rock star.

People I do like for 2012...

-Ron Paul
-Jim Demint
-Mike Pence

Uh huh

It will be interesting to see who will be the Republican candidate.

I agree with most of the analysis, very astute. Particularly regarding Mitt Romney; I'm surprised the media hasn't made more out of his constant position changing. Mitt is a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry, IMO. He was pro-choice running for Massachusetts governor, then pro-life running for the Republican nomination for president. He signed mandated health care coverage into law in Mass., then said it wasn't right for America when he ran for president. He said he wanted government out of free markets in most of the country, then when he campaigned in Michigan he said the government should bail out the auto companies.

Romney's defense of his flip-flopping was that Ronald Reagan had changed from being pro-choice to pro-life; however, the big difference there is that Reagan changed due to personal convictions, rather than poll indications. If I recall correctly, Reagan shifted from the more popular position (at that time) of being pro-choice to being pro-life. Not once has Romney shifted from the more popular position (in the arena in which he was campaigning) to the less-popular one, in fact each "shift" was toward the larger base of voters. Regardless of your views on the individual issues, the obvious takeaway was that Romney would say anything to please whatever audience he was in front of, and that he couldn't be trusted to deliver on anything in particular.

While I admire Sarah Palin's energy and early accomplishments, I can't take her seriously as a presidential candidate, given her lack of experience and now her job-quitting. Also I don't agree with her on certain issues. But she is more impressive than the liberal press generally likes to admit.

Newt Gingrich is a smart guy, but he has way too much personal baggage (see his marriage history, and book-deal hypocrisy) to be elected, IMO.

Pawlenty to me is the best of that list, but I agree he lacks a certain charisma or even accomplishment at this point.

I was a Rudy Giuliani fan for the 2008 election, but for some reason he never got the traction he needed then, and therefore it seems unlikely he'd go far in 2012.

I'd like to see someone not on that list step up. Maybe Boehner, maybe Corker. Maybe Jeff Flake, though he seems off the radar now. Maybe Paul Ryan, though he'll likely be seen as too young even in 2012.

2012 is a long way off, and we need Obama and the rest to do the best job possible (which for many of us obviously would mean a 180* turn from where he's been headed, but remember Bill Clinton did a pretty big turn after his first two years as president) for the rest of his term. But in 2012 I definitely hope that there will be someone not on the "likely hopeful" list of opponents, to give us a serious and worthy choice in that election.

quote:

Originally posted by Mystery Man:
I agree with most of the analysis, very astute. Particularly regarding Mitt Romney; I'm surprised the media hasn't made more out of his constant position changing. Mitt is a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry, IMO. He was pro-choice running for Massachusetts governor, then pro-life running for the Republican nomination for president. He signed mandated health care coverage into law in Mass., then said it wasn't right for America when he ran for president. He said he wanted government out of free markets in most of the country, then when he campaigned in Michigan he said the government should bail out the auto companies.

Romney's defense of his flip-flopping was that Ronald Reagan had changed from being pro-choice to pro-life; however, the big difference there is that Reagan changed due to personal convictions, rather than poll indications. If I recall correctly, Reagan shifted from the more popular position (at that time) of being pro-choice to being pro-life. Not once has Romney shifted from the more popular position (in the arena in which he was campaigning) to the less-popular one, in fact each "shift" was toward the larger base of voters. Regardless of your views on the individual issues, the obvious takeaway was that Romney would say anything to please whatever audience he was in front of, and that he couldn't be trusted to deliver on anything in particular.

Fully agreed. The guy is a phony. What bothers me is there is no way in hell he's not going to run in 2012. It's entirely likely FOX will be supportive of him as well. They were very favorable toward him in 2008, giving him more questions then most of the other candidates in their presidential debates, as well as a lot of interviews and general coverage.

Romney is the worst kind of politician possible. Someone who will say anything or take any position to get elected. Who votes for people like this?

quote:

Originally posted by Mystery Man:
While I admire Sarah Palin's energy and early accomplishments, I can't take her seriously as a presidential candidate, given her lack of experience and now her job-quitting. Also I don't agree with her on certain issues. But she is more impressive than the liberal press generally likes to admit.

I'd vote for her against Obama in a general election, but I don't think she'll make it that far. I don't think she's even going to run in 2012. The liberal media is scared to death she will though. I think she could beat Obama...but she's not the ideal candidate in my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Mystery Man:
Newt Gingrich is a smart guy, but he has way too much personal baggage (see his marriage history, and book-deal hypocrisy) to be elected, IMO.

Pawlenty to me is the best of that list, but I agree he lacks a certain charisma or even accomplishment at this point.

I guarantee they will both run. Either one could get the nomination. I see Pawlenty as having some promise. He's a conservative governor in a liberal state. I'm finished with Gingrich though.

quote:

Originally posted by Mystery Man:
I was a Rudy Giuliani fan for the 2008 election, but for some reason he never got the traction he needed then, and therefore it seems unlikely he'd go far in 2012.

Really? I didn't like Rudy at all. He didn't make it through a single debate without talking about how he witnessed the events of 9-11, and I felt he displayed a complete misunderstanding of our foreign policy and the 9-11 commission report. When 9-11 happened and I saw Rudy on TV, I thought to myself..."That guy is probably thinking this will win him the presidency one day."

I'm not sure if that's true or not, but Rudy sure as hell talked up the fact that he was Mayor of New York when 9-11 happened. His courageous actions on that day are worth noting, and his fiscal conservatism in a liberal hell hole city is also impressive. But his record on guns, abortion and foreign policy was too far away from me.

Rudy was also a life long Democrat who once supported George McGovern. He's changed his opinions with the political winds a lot in his career.

quote:

Originally posted by Mystery Man:
I'd like to see someone not on that list step up. Maybe Boehner, maybe Corker. Maybe Jeff Flake, though he seems off the radar now. Maybe Paul Ryan, though he'll likely be seen as too young even in 2012.

I really like Paul Ryan but he is young. I hope he'll run in 2016 if Obama wins in 2012.

quote:

Originally posted by Mystery Man:
2012 is a long way off, and we need Obama and the rest to do the best job possible (which for many of us obviously would mean a 180* turn from where he's been headed, but remember Bill Clinton did a pretty big turn after his first two years as president) for the rest of his term. But in 2012 I definitely hope that there will be someone not on the "likely hopeful" list of opponents, to give us a serious and worthy choice in that election.

Clinton knew in 95 that he had a Republican controlled government. He either had to lean to the right and get things done or have a completely unproductive presidency.

I don't think Obama will compromise like that. He'd probably rather have one hellish liberal term than two terms where he did anything conservative. That's just my opinion.

..

And, now for the weather report.

quote:

Originally posted by Nice Guy Donnie:
A list of people I'm not excited about and I will not support for President in 2012...

Mitt Romney
--It's my opinion that Mitt Romney would be willing to say anything, or take ANY possible position to get elected. He's changed his views on almost EVERYTHING over the years. I never liked the guy all through 2007 and 2008. He reminds me of a used car salesman.

Mike Huckabee
--Mike Huckabee is right where he belongs. Hosting a TV show cracking jokes and playing music with celebrities. He's a funny guy who has personality, but it's not what we need. One of the biggest things that pissed me off about the mainstream media and 2008 primary season happened with Huckabee. In one of the later debates just before the Iowa vote, all the GOP candidates were allowed to name a federal department or program they would get rid of. Huckabee said "Let's get rid of the IRS" and the crowd cheered like crazy. The mainstream media pushed this like crazy and all the post debate experts praised Huckabee saying he had the best line of the night. Huckabee went on to win Iowa, the first state.

What no one in the mainstream media bothered to point out, is that RON PAUL had said the same thing in several of the prior debates. The only difference is Paul's thirty year record of NEVER VOTING TO RAISE TAXES, and Huckabee's record as Arkansas Governor, where he not only made no effort to get rid of the state income tax, but he raised taxes.

Newt Gingrich
--Newt would be better then a lot of the people I name here. However I have to say his recent endorsement of a liberal congressional candidate over a conservative (Doug Hoffman) has shown his true colors. Newt is clearly more interested in party over principle and that type of behavior (coming from Bush) is what delivered us Obama in the first place.

Tim Pawlenty
--I'm just not inspired by the guy. It bothers me that the media has been pushing this guy since 2005 to run for President. I'm not sure why. He hasn't really accomplished anything.

Sarah Palin
--I like Palin in general, but I think 2012 is not the year for her. Still too much leftover negative coverage. I think it's entirely possible she'll never run for office again, even though many people in the media will not shut up about her. I also think every liberal's biggest fear is the possibility that she'll run. Imagine how defeated they would feel if she beat Obama.

Each of these above named people are being propped up by the mainstream media on a regular basis and will be pushed into the faces of Americans as "potential Presidential Candidates" over the next two years.

The whole part is uninspiring, so are you and witilinki! GET LOST, witilinki!

quote:

Originally posted by Cathee:
The whole part is uninspiring, so are you and witilinki! GET LOST, witilinki!

Get dehorned and take a long walk off a short pier, at 10,000 feet, VERMIN!

quote:

Originally posted by witilinki:

quote:

Originally posted by Cathee:
The whole part is uninspiring, so are you and witilinki! GET LOST, witilinki!

Get dehorned and take a long walk off a short pier, at 10,000 feet, VERMIN!

.

Having fun yet witilinki

quote:

Originally posted by Cathee:
Having fun yet witilinki

Yeah, you?