Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder wtf is going on with the Republican field of candidates?

Huntsman is the most qualified, truly consistent conservative of the bunch; he has the best track record of accomplishment from his days as governor; he has the best resume as far as foreign policy, having been President Obama's ambassador to China, and is best equipped to face the next 4-8 years of dealing with Asia; and he rides a Harley! :)

Seriously, why is it that everyone keeps flocking to the laughable candidates that have no shot at winning? Gingrich has so much baggage he needs a U-haul trailer to carry it on the campaign trail; Perry is a minor leaguer trying to break into the majors without sufficient game to play at that level; Paul has both his age and his attitude regarding Iran that will keep him from being on the ticket; Bachman has done nothing to show she is not a "flake" (in fact, she has done pretty much nothing at all in two terms as a member of congress); and Romney has his flip-flopping/health care issues that will be difficult to overcome.

If the party does not open it's collective eyes and see what they have in Huntsman, I would hope at the very least that following his re-election President Obama would tap him to serve as Secretary of State, given Ms. Clinton's statement that she will not continue another four years.

But I would vote for Huntsman! :cool:

Rick Perry: We've had one marginally educated semi-retarded president from Texas already; do we really need another?

Ron Paul: A bit nutty, and I don't like his stance on cutting defense

Newt Gingrich: Hell fucking no, I'd take Obama before this fucktard. He's such a slimy piece of shit he is the definition of what's wrong with Congress and DC politics.

Mitt Romney: I wish instead of changing his stance on his healthcare /compromise success with the Democrats of his state he'd say "Fuck you, I met them in the middle and we made good policies and that's what we need" instead he's playing a bit to the audience which I can understand but it hurts his credibility.

Huntsman: Seems pretty solid, but I haven't heard much about him or from him and that's not the way to win an election.

Herman Cain: One word - Token

The fact that Cain was allowed to stay in the race and be taken seriously for so long should tell us how screwed up the current field is.

The entire circus is just another reality show throwing red meat at people proven to be extremely gullible and profoundly ignorant. The game is who can say the most shockingly stupid and racist thing -- current winner is probably Newt.

The GOP machine decided Romney was their man (it's his turn, after all) like six months ago -- that's why you're seeing all those "Hey, I'm a Mormon!" billboards in major cities. They're priming all the bigoted evangelicals that Mormons are people too, so no one asks too many questions about whether or not Jesus being from space and fighting the Aztecs is really kosher. Note how Mitt doesn't really say all that much? That's because he's a politician and doesn't believe any of this crap.

The only thing remotely debate-like about this is when they occasionally forget to ignore Ron Paul and he comes out of left-field with one of those reality-oriented statements and rhetorically annihilates one of those money-whoring sock puppets.

If you're still a Republican, you need to take a really good look in the mirror about this one. Maybe you're the same, but the Southern Strategy and the Neocons have turned your party into the horsemen of Idiocracy-style fascism. You have so few serious candidates because none of them want to even touch that clusterfuck of a book-tour gladiator gossip hour because we record this shit and can play it back later to discredit you in front of anyone who made it out of the 3rd grade.

(I don't like saying I'm voting for anyone because a lot of things can happen between now and then, but I am registering Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the Texas primary because he's the only R candidate so far that isn't going to take us to another pointless war for oligarchy profit while burning the Constitution and starting witch-hunts. I've buried enough relatives already, thank you. In the general election, I really can't say).

Something I never in a million years thought I'd say: I hope Hillary runs again. I don't think she will, but she'd annihilate Obama and she's proven herself as secretary of state. Even my die hard republican father said he'd vote for her before most of these other jokers.

If nothing else if she ran maybe she'd be able to thin out the GOP herd some because the nutjobs would get tossed out in favor of someone who could compete. But instead we get the anybody but Obama race.

Well, with our good President Obama our expectations were high. Probably too high, but that still doesn't make up for the 2 years after he was elected how little they accomplished with a Democratic House, Senate and White House. Since then, its been this ugly stalemate which is accomplishing nothing.

Who, of all of them, would be able to accomplish goals that all sides could agree with? I don't see anyone standing a chance. Gingrich as front runner is such a poor choice its unbelievable he is even an option. Cain and Perry were horrible and it didn't make sense they were concidered viable by anyone. There are some good ideas in the crowd, but those are few and far between.

Long and short though, whomever wins we're still fucked unless all of the Congressional incumbants lose (which, after the gerrymandering this past year, is near impossible). Best we can hope is Obama gets a decent Supreme Court nominee or two in second term.

Its called politics as entertainment. How else could Donald Trump grab so much attention? The guy models himself a kingmaker, if only in his own head. Probably the best thing he could do is say "You're Fired" to Congress if he really wants to be productive.

Malse put it best. There is not much to separate this Presidential race from "Keeping up with the Kardashians". Ron Paul gets smothered because no one has time for logical solutions. Huntsman is trying to distance himself from the circus, but then he ends up not getting the exposure.

Ultimately who wins will be whomever can fear monger, manipulate as well as shock and awe the most sucker voters out there and not who might have the best credentials or the best ideas for moving things forward. If the Presidential hopefuls are just tapping into their perceived demographics, than the assumption is that we are all stupid. Stuff that everyone on this board seems to know but doesn't translate well into the rest of society. That is this cynics point of view anyway.

PS: Hilary would never run as long as the assumption is of having the Democratic party be a unified front. Hilary running against Obama represents that things have gotten so low as to not even have solidarity within parties, let alone the government as a whole. The parties have their factions but Hilary running would be wearing that on their sleeves. Its doubtful the public would stand for it but anything goes probably.

Regarding Hilary running, President Clinton has said a few times while being interviewed that she has no intention of any further political involvement.

However, there have been a few political "analysts" that have proferred the idea that President Obama should pass on a a second term if he is able to convince Hilary to accept the nomination of the party and throws his support behind her; that is believed to be at this time the best scenario for a winning candidacy.

The reality is, though, that there isn't any chance in hell that Obama wouldn't run, and its really too late for anyone else to run on the Democrat ticket. Obama would have to give back a lot of money he has raised, while no one else has raised anything, for starters.

However, there have been a few political "analysts" that have proferred the idea that President Obama should pass on a a second term if he is able to convince Hilary to accept the nomination of the party and throws his support behind her; that is believed to be at this time the best scenario for a winning candidacy.

You have to wonder if these people ever leave their TV studio. Incumbents have such a strong advantage that Obama could probably not campaign at all and the odds are in his favor unless a dark horse like Kucinich or Nader finds significant traction in the near future (and neither of them have any stated plans to do so). In recent history Carter lost his incumbency thanks to Reagan committing treason, and Bush Sr lost due to Ross Perot and a tax revolt by loonies in his own part. Unless something seriously breaks the Democrat base, no right minded independent is likely to think about voting for Mittens and certainly not for Bachman Gringrich Fascist Jesus Overdrive.

That does sort of remind me of the 1912 election though ... both Roosevelt and Wilson were running as progressives against Taft (oligarchist) and Debs (one of the last times we actually had a socialist candidate for major office).

It seems like Obama disappoints me even more each month, but I don't see how he loses this election. If it were possible to vote no-confidence, he'd be in trouble (along with the rest of Washington), but there are far too many demographics and voting blocs who simply won't consider voting for the alternative.

I believe that the GOP field is a mess this time around because, deep down, everyone knows that math. Serious contenders with enough runway to wait for a later election would be foolish to go up against Obama in 2012. So, it's a bunch of clowns that wouldn't normally get a shot and a couple guys who've run out of time for their shot at it and have to try now.

It seems like Obama disappoints me even more each month, but I don't see how he loses this election.

Its a big difference between "Disappoint" which is Obama versus "Hate and would like to kill until dead" which is Congress and "Can't take even remotely seriously even under the influence of mind altering substances" which is most of the GOP.

Obama still gets off with the lightest sentence. He tries. He has integrity. Unfortunately he doesn't have much to work with. Nor will any President until terms limits are imposed on Congress to the point where you can't be re-elected. Until then, the government will remain broken.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say he has integrity. At least, not much. He just had better marketing than most of them there for a while.

I think my biggest problem with President Obama is his aversion to conflict; he does not use the opportunities consistently brought his way to demonstrate any backbone, but will instead seek to make whatever compromise will suffice to end the conflict.

Sometimes, the President needs to kick some ass.


(And, the events in North Korea may well give Huntsman the opportunity to showcase some of the expertise he has that none of the other candidates can touch. Just an afterthought.)

I believe that the GOP field is a mess this time around because, deep down, everyone knows that math. Serious contenders with enough runway to wait for a later election would be foolish to go up against Obama in 2012. So, it's a bunch of clowns that wouldn't normally get a shot and a couple guys who've run out of time for their shot at it and have to try now.

You are the second person for me to hear this from today, and before that I honestly never considered that as a possibility. Makes sense.

Byl, your aversion to Obama is one of my biggest attractors to him. The last president was a little too willing to head into conflict. I wish Obama had done more to avoid/get us out of conflict.

There are a lot of things I don't like about the current boss, but that ain't one of them.

Byl might have had the angle of Obama not being willing to kick ass in Washington as opposed to kicking ass in places like Iraq. Obama seems to think that is OK to have the public persona of being willing to compromise in a town that is about everything but that currently. One can only hope he is playing as dirty as he needs to behind the scenes but so far there have not been much in the way of tangible results.

Kanyli, as Lumm gleaned from my poorly explained post, I was addressing the conflicts in Washington; he has had a multitude of opportunities to take a firm stand with the members of Congress but has failed to do so in almost all cases. As my 78 year old mother has put it, he looks "wimpy". And she was one of the most fervent supporters of his in our circle of friends and family.

This latest debacle surrounding the payroll tax vote is an excellent chance for him to step up and lay into the members of Congress for allowing political game-playing to get in the way of what is (at the moment) best for the American public.

Could someone please explain this whole Keystone XL thing and why it is so important? Looked up some stuff but not enough to be 100% sure its being understood. Is it only about stability in the oil market? This project is not going to create much in the way of jobs and absolutely no direct reduction in fuel prices (one that can be noticed anyway) but will create vastly more income for ConocoPhilips and a few other oil giants.

I am just scratching the surface but if people can get past the pure rape of the landscape in Alberta in addition to the massive amounts of water wasted all the while dumping obscene amounts of additional carbon into the air, than it sets Canada up as the largest reserve of hydrocarbons under friendly control in history. The thing is, it is not profitable if gas gets cheaper, so no cheap gas for anyone in the USA in addition to all the oil being refined getting shipped off overseas.

Is it worth holding a piece of legislation hostage for? It would probably do as advertised to give some stability to oil markets since so much of the stuff is in the hands of a-holes but holy crap it is made out to be environmental Armageddon. Be nice if some of the money made went to getting off the oil teet instead of buying more yachts and Gulfstreams for oil execs but the cynic in me says that won't happen. This is probably one of the shittiest moves yet in Washington.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I think I just expect that lack of confrontation / organization from the Dems. Sort of like Pelosi saying they wouldn't investigate Bush regarding Iraq because he wouldn't cooperate with them.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/humor/201112/25-least-influential-people-alive#slide=26

See also #24.

Well, so much for that.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/15/politics/gop-campaign-wrap/index.html

Looks like Mittens has it locked down. The guy seems so vanilla though but he might win the presidency just because he isn't Obama.

Oh yes, Mittens the man who truly understands the plight of the average American.

he might win the presidency just because he isn't Obama.

No chance. A lot of left-leaning people are legitimately upset/disillusioned with Obama, but most of them wouldn't dream of voting Republican. So, things the pundits like to point to, like his approval rating, aren't really indicative of the outcome of the election.

Looks like Mittens has it locked down. The guy seems so vanilla though but he might win the presidency just because he isn't Obama.

Mittens hasn't actually locked down anything, the media is just using this as their next impending-super-crisis-omg-look-fight-fight-fight. There have been races (including the last primary seasons) that ran well past the first few states, one of which wasn't even a binding vote.

He also has absolutely no chance to beat Obama unless Obama truly and titanically screws up, like being caught muslim-spooning with a gay member of Hezbollah. There is a vocal minority of the voting base who will always vote R no matter what. These people are effectively irrelevant to the presidential campaign (there is a similar but somewhat smaller D base). Obama, by virtue of not being a total fuckup and being the incumbet, basically has the regular independent voters locked in, because most of them absolutely despise the Tea Party. Mitt (or any other nominee but Paul or Huntsman, who is out, sadly) would have to run an impossible race both to capture the non-reliable Republicans with stone-the-harlots red meat AND the folks-next-door independents who like things like Social Security, functioning education, buying American when they can, are vastly ok with gay unions, generally aren't upset about medical marijuana, and by overwhelming majority do not want to go into another war.


Also, regarding your earlier question about the tar sands/XL pipeline thing -- in extreme redux:

There are highly inefficient oil extraction opportunities in Canada. It will require untold amounts of water diversion, destroying millions of acres of habitats, it will not affect oil/gas availability in any meaningful respect because it will be the highest priced oil anywhere, and it amounts to a huge giveaway to a handful of oil companies because without a publicly guaranteed pipeline project, it'll never ever be remotely profitable.

I don't know about that whole independent voters being locked on to Obama. While Obama had a lot of military support the first time, judging by the general level of griping/table talk that support is gone.

I hate to get into the same vein of "You didn't vote for him because he's black!" But seriously, when people's biggest consideration between candidates is well he's Mormon, but he's Catholic so I'll vote for the mick. There's something wrong with you. But either way though they'll still vote for the Mormon before the Double Secret Muslim, so at least there is that.

But what if you found out that Mitt is a serial killer?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/405930/january-15-2012/colbert-super-pac-ad---attack-in-b-minor-for-strings

I gave that PAC money just to see ads like that. 2012 election season is going to be *awesome*.

He might get voted in just to lift the ineptitude in Washington since all he is from an issues stance is Obama with a bit of GOP spice and garnish just for shits and giggles. The kicker is, with one party running everything, maybe Washington might be able to pretend to do something, even though what will come won't have much impact on the typical day to day life of average people.

Romney is the oligarch's oligarch with his 500 million dollar net worth. Big business will want him to be their collective baby-daddy and austerity freaks will think they have died and gone to heaven. Professionally, Mittens is a hatchet man for corporate restructuring and downsizing so expect the stock market to go up while the government manages to deliver much less while still taking in more than ever of our money. Otherwise all the real problems are well beyond Washington's control. They all just like to think they have a grasp on it.

The kicker is, with one party running everything, maybe Washington might be able to pretend to do something, even though what will come won't have much impact on the typical day to day life of average people.

Because that worked out so well when Bush Jr. and Obama had that setup?

The less lobbyist-authored legislation they're rubber stamping up there, the better. Let them stay gridlocked forever for all I care.

But seriously, Romney is not going to beat Obama. I'd prefer him to Obama, but there's just no rational argument for him (or any current GOP candidate) winning if you do the math.

there's just no rational argument for him (or any current GOP candidate) winning


Actually, the biggest argument I have heard from the older folks on the mail route and at the local VFW/Legion halls against Gingrich is not my argument about his wasteful sour grapes chase against President Clinton, but that 'he has so little regard for the office he would bring that home-wrecking adulteress in as first lady'. :eek:

Watching the campaigns the last few days Newt just strikes me as being the little bitch of the race. It's always someone else's fault his polls are slipping or why he can't get enough votes etc etc. I just wish he'd STFU and go home before he does too much swift boating against his fellow candidates

These guys are dropping like flies. But yah, Newt should be the next to go. He has no relevance other than trying to milk past name recognition. Heck, do any of these guys have any relevance?

There isn't a current Republican rep that can beat Obama.

Well it's official, Newt has won the South Carolina primary. can we please, please let them secede again?
Honestly in some ways i wish we had a dual presidency. president one in charge of foreign policy and affairs and in charge of the military. president two handles all things domestic including regulating commerce and the EPA.
Under that system i would vote for Ron Paul as president one in a heart beat! and i do not mean that Obama has done a bad job at foreign policy, frankly it's one area that he shined at IMHO

Been hearing more "squawking" that Palin is planning to make a play for the nomination at the convention without having to put in the time visiting the states for the primaries and answering the peoples' questions; goes hand in hand with her previous "lazy" performances as governor, mayor and energy committee chair. Wonder if there is any truth that Rick Perry would be her choice as running mate? :eek:

I hope that stupid cunt tries, then fails, because she will, and then finally she might just shut her whore mouth up.

If you can't tell, I hate her.

As it stands the GOP will toss so much mud at each other Obama wont have to spend a dime on pointing out why his opponent isn the right choice. He will just recycle what everyone has been slamming each other with.

Starting to hate the overall political climate that todays society has created.

Time to see what the Supreme Court hands down this week. Obamacare getting ruled unconstitutional might not hand the Presidency to Mittens by default, but it will certainly make a race that is considered to be close even closer. Kinda makes you laugh that even though the GoP candidates are shit, the race is still going to be considered close. Sucks to be Obama. Greystone might have a point that people are just sick of the system or are too lazy to bother.

Anyone want to run for Dictator? Be head of the junta? We are probably dumb enough as a nation to think that an authoritarian government might be an improvement.

I don't see how anyone can expect anything other than a 5-4 decision split along party lines.

Thought one of the justices was typically a swing? Anthony Kennedy.

Well, if this vote shoots down Obamacare strictly based on partisanship, then Obama is probably out. Then we get Mittencare/Romneycare/Massholecare, which is the same thing only the courts like it.