Who’s your favorite?
Don Quixote on Aug 21 2010 at 5:19 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
Lazy Saturday and so I’ve got an easy series of questions for everyone. Who do you think will be the Republican nominee for President in 2012? Why? Who do you want to be the nominee? Why, and if the two answers differ, why don’t you think your candidate will make it? Finally, is there any realistic chance that a third party could succeed any time in the next, say, 20-40 years? If so, how?
As always, I look forward to hearing from you. BTW, I expect Bookworm to be back and, with luck, able to blog again by Tuesday or so. Even though I’m enjoying this, I can’t wait for her to get back, and I’ll bet you can’t either.
Related posts:
- One of my favorite songs, sung by one of my favorite singers
- Two of my favorite bloggers are back
- My twenty favorite actresses
Email This Post To A Friend
16 Responses to “Who’s your favorite?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
My favorite is that God gets back on the Throne of Heaven and stop letting the devil take charge.
Haley Barbour, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels.
VP: The one and only Sarah (coach her up for 2020)
Lot’s of people I’d like to see as President. I just don’t know if they could win an election at this time.
Thaddeus McCotter comes to mind…
People erroneously think that they need an electable candidate for office.
The Left thought farther. Instead of attempting to adapt to the fickle nature of public opinion or current cultural sentiment, they ensured that the cultural and political background would be ripe for their particular candidate.
The two games being played here are dramatically and radically different.
Mitch Daniels (P), Chris Christie (P), Gen. Petraeus (P), Sarah Palin (P or VP), Jim Ryan (VP).
Last round, I supported Romney but Massachusetts RomneyCare took him out of contention, as far as I am concerned. I like Barbour but think he is too old guard Republican. I am willing to change my mind, however.
I suspect our lists will change considerably in a year or so, however.
I think Jim DeMint will wind up the Rep nominee. I’d like to see Sarah Palin, but I think she’s been poisoned in the minds of too many Americans by the MSM and the Left (repeating myself, I know.).
A Third Party could emerge, but with so many fringe splinters around I can’t see any of them forming a strong enough national party structure to matter.
Sarah Palin. With another book coming out and her TV series I think she’ll be at the top of her game. She already leads on the issues with her Facebook posts.
I have no clue who will be the Republican nominees in 2012. I hope that it will be Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana, with either Chris Christie or Jim Ryan as a running mate. I hope that it’s not any of the old-guard Republicans such as Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. I like Palin, but I think that she is unelectable. Whoever is the nominee, I just pray that he/she is a solid conservative.
What Zoltan said, word for word. Let me add that I think we’ve almost reached the point where two Presidents are required: one for domestic affairs, the other for foreign affairs. That said, it’s never going to happen. But I can see Petraeus, already proving himself the indispensable man in two administrations, playing a vital part in the next administration too, perhaps as VP, Secretary of State, national security advisor, or chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
” That said, it’s never going to happen.”
Sparta had two kings. One to send to foreign wars, while the other stayed home to rule.
Expand your imagination and make the future a reality. Rather than being limited to tradition and only believing that things must stay as they are.x
“Palin is unelectable”.
Sounds like what was they said about Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. In Britain, this was once said by Winston Churchill.
First, define “solid conservative”.
I think some of the things a “solid conservative” would believe in are the following:
Limited government
A balanced budget
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Strict constructionist judges
Personal responsibility
The greatest amount of personal freedom for the greatest amount of citizens possible
This list could go on and on, but generally a “solid conservative” would be in favor of any idea which champions the individual over the state.
My personal favorite right now is Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey. But he’s so early into his first term that a wait-and-see approach is warranted.
There won’t be a perfect candidate out there. (Ronald Reagan wasn’t perfect. Second marriage. Lots of liberal friends. Dysfunctional family.) You may be dismayed that Christie thinks the Ground Zero Mosque is a silly distraction. I wish he didn’t think that.
Mitch Daniels is impressive as a fiscal conservative, but he wants to take all traditional values and conservative values other than fiscal off the table. Refuse to discuss them or allow them for debate. That’s such a huge mistake – a terrible thing to say, splintering coalitions – that I hardly know what to think of his overall wisdom. But fiscally, he’s an incredibly impressive figure.
Sarah Palin is a fantastic populist figure who could be managing the rehabilitation of her image quite well, and in time. She’d be awesome at the bully pulpit and “message” part of the Presidency. But she has yet to prove her cred with a serious speech such as Reagan was able to give in ’64 – and THAT was sixteen years before his Presidency! Her record as governor is not quite as impressive as Daniels’ or Christie, and she showed extremely poor wisdom in managing her image during the McCain campaign. And managing her assassins within the McCain campaign when they Romneyed her.
(And yes, I do think it was the Romney people inside the McCain campaign who tried to assassinate her politically. Absolutely unforgivable. I HATE the man due to this; and I also HATE his Massaachusetts-O-Health-Care, and I will never vote for Romney due to those two reasons. He has utterly disqualified himself in my book, pending a genuine restitution for these two immense political sins. I also think that he would be an extraordinarily poor communicator and totally fail at the bully pulpit aspect of the Presidency. He can’t articulate a message out of a wet paper bag. He’s too air-brushed and smoooooooooth as well. I doubt he’s got John Edwards’ skeletons hanging out in his closet, but I just cannot trust the guy. He’d be quite good, even excellent, in a Cabinet position, I would think, though.)
There are a lot of good solid conservatives out there, and one of them may make a stellar president. One of them will do something, or make a speech, to cause them to suddenly be taken seriously as a candidate. There’s no rush, for me. But I agree with other commenters that I do NOT want someone old-school running for the Presidency. They’ve been around through the bitter years of 1998-2006, and not one of them did anything, or took a stand, that I can remember that would make a difference now. They’re sunsetted, they need to go back-bench, and fade away.
Enough! Stop talking about Chris Christie for President. We NEED him here in New Jersey before you all take him away.
Seriously though, I think Chris Christie might be a contender; it depends how well he can take on the unions here in NJ. Obviously, he is doing something right because the Newark, NJ, Star-Ledger had a front page article about him in which they interviewed a few of his former teachers:
Gov. Christie’s attitude toward N.J. education bewilders, hurts his former teachers
Even though the article doesn’t praise him, I say he must be doing something right for the paper and the teachers to “go after” him. And compared to other “news” reports about him this one is rather mild.
I do have a fondness for Palin. I feel that she and her family are much closer to being middle-class/working class than other national politicians this country has seen in a long time. Something that I think will benefit this country greatly – a President who is middle-class; or in the very least a President who has not forgotten his/her middle-class roots.
In fact, my fondness for Palin is such that if she decides to run again I will not only vote for her I will try to volunteer for her campaign in anyway that I can; something that I have never done before. (short of giving money – something that I will never do for ANY politician as I need the money more than they do). BY her being middle-class I think she has a better understanding of what most Ameicans value and desire in our government.
I do worry about how “electable” Palin is given the strong dislike the MSM and liberals have for her. I was especially disappointed at how the press treated her and her family as a “bunch of hicks.” As one who grew up in the country I ran into that snobbish attitude from city folks all the time while in college – so much for liberals being “open-minded.”
So, yea, I would say that Palin and Christie are folks to look for in a couple of years; but, I would not count out Romney or Huckabee – they are still strong contenders. I think, also, 2012 is still a long ways off (especially with Obama in charge during those 2 years; anyone want to wager on how many more “vacations” he will take?) so there are/could be a couple fo “dark horses” to surprise us all.
P.S. DQ, some really great posts provoking a lot of interesting comments – great job done while Book’s been away.
Zoltan – thank you for answering my challenge. And I agree with you that individual welfare must be championed over the state’s. Also on personal responsibility and personal freedom. However, I have no idea what constitutional constructionism is… and this is after reading much on the subject. I fear it’s one of those things that means whatever one wants it to mean. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
And though I’ve stated that I agree with you that individual welfare should trump state welfare, I think I should state that the sentiment does not apply to any one individual’s situation. As an example, the individual situation of the woman who had to wear her sister’s false teeth because she could not afford her own is not applicable (And… that goes beyond the fact I didn’t believe that story in the first place.)
Silly as it sounds, that principle only applies to the “collective individual” or, if you prefer the “representative individual”. No one personal situation can be substituted for that which is best for all individuals. This is where the socialists gain a toehold. This is where freedom and responsibility butt heads with fairness and equality.
Humans like all of those qualities, conservative or liberal.
The problem is deciding which or and/or how much of each of those four things government should interfere with. And… government it essentially interference.