I think we have a pretty good selection of Republican voters who read this blog. Do any of you really want Sarah Palin to run for president? How about Mitt Romney? Rudy Giuliani?
None of them are attractive candidates to me.
Sarah Palin, for whatever reason left (abandoned?) the office to which she was elected prior to the end of her term. ‘nuf said.
The word is “resigned,” Jack. Sort of like a first-term senator from Illinois resigned from his office for whatever reason.
Of course, in contrast to the senator from Illinois, Sarah Palin has not gone on to become a lying murdering traitor to the United States.
I’m not excited about any of the current GOP candidates.
There’s a difference between resigning your office to go make millions on a book tour and resigning your office to take a higher office which you were elected to by a larger constituency.
And to Dr. Veith’s question: there really aren’t any attractive candidates and, unless some dark horse rides in or some scandal rears its head, I think Obama will get another 4 years, easily.
Well, Kirk, if being elected to a higher office by a larger constituency is an acceptable reason, then the claim by her supporters that is what Palin will be pursuing should also be acceptable, albeit the route Palin has taken is not the one lined with the corruption of Demonrats and fawning fifth-column media clymers.
Kirk@5 is, I think, (unfortunately?) correct: this is the Republicans’ race to lose, but it appears that they are doing whatever necessary to lose it.
@6 Yes, leaving office a year and a half before campaigning begins and forgoing executive experience that would be valuable in running a country is exactly what presidential candidates should do to stick it to the liberals.
I don’t want any of those three running. And I wouldn’t vote for any of them except maybe Sarah Palin.
Good morning, everyone. I see they’ve cut a certain commenter’s rationality ration by half again.
I’m not happy about any of those three. If I had to pick one, perhaps Newt because I think he would make the most competent president out of the three. But he could not win against Obama. The only one who I really like right now and would vote for is Herman Cain, but I don’t know if he can get the name recognition to win the nomination.
My vote is for the hilarious, sensible, and intelligent cultural critic, Mark Steyn, although he is not running, and he’s not a citizen. But our country needs intelligent cultural criticism, and we need to laugh.
One of his true quotes:
“In an Oprahfied America, no politics is local and most of life is televisual.”
More of his true and hilarious quotes:
I like what I’ve heard from Herman Cain. I hope he can get some traction.
I keep hearing about this Cain character, but not really understanding where his qualifications come from. I know he tows a pretty standard Tea Party line, but he doesn’t have any experience. His understanding of foreign policy seems pretty basic (support Israel, protect America) but he doesn’t really seem to understand the nuances of trade and influence (see his comments on US investment in the Brazilian oil markets). He believes that the .8% of the Americans that are Muslims will some how subjugate us via Sharia law and I found his statement that he’d be unwilling to appoint a Muslim to his cabinet pretty appalling (and legally questionable). Maybe he’ll flesh out as time goes on, but he doesn’t seem exceptional to me, except that he’s quite charismatic.
The current Republican crop’s not doing much for me. I don’t believe Palin’s running, so I wouldn’t mind seeing McCain declare his candidacy or perhaps even Walker, the Wisc. governor.
Kirk@14: Agreed. He has significant and successful business (i.e., managerial and executive) experience, but I personally think he should run for a more modest office first. Personally, I think one should run for “lower” offices for their own sakes and not as mere stepping-stones to higher office, but if he presumptuously insists that he is fit for the presidency, he should at least bolster his C.V. a bit first.
In other words, he’s yet another under-qualified Republican candidate at the moment.
Are there any statesmen left? At this rate, I’ll be writing in Calvin Coolidge again. Yes, Calvin Coolidge. Yes, again.
Cincinnatus (@16), Coolidge? Again? I think you’ve misread the Constitution. They have to have spent at least the last 14 years on American soil, not in it!
Perhaps you were confused by the McCain candidacy, though he was merely older than dirt.
Or maybe you were thinking of Palin, who, though she may also sleep in a coffin, does so above ground.
Booklover@12, Well, I don’t know that Steyn has the necessary qualifications to be the POTUS, but I definitely would prefer his voice to that of screechy Sarah! Yes, I think it would be neat to hear a Brit in the oval office! He’s a smart one and a true conservative!
Get a clue.
Kirk @ 14 He believes that the .8% of the Americans that are Muslims will some how subjugate us via Sharia law …
Not “some how” but some day. They are reproducing faster than “undocumented workers” (and Hispanic is now the majority population in Texas). If you don’t think they will press for Sharia law, way before they are a majority, check out Canada and Great Britain.
As Governor, Palin walked off the job, presumably because the press hurt her feelings. They are going to hurt some more if she runs for President. Do we really need another President enamored with the sound of his/her own voice? Whose leash will she be on?
helen – yes, the streets of Saskatoon are swarming with Islamic fundamentlaists, my wife has to wear that black thingy and….
Don’t read tabloid journalism. Recently a father/son was convicted of murder due to an “honour” killing. Ontario, I think. And my Moslem friend just loves her Guiness, so yes, the tabloids have it wrong.
Mark Steyn is Canadian, born in Toronto, but now lives in NH. But folks here in the West of Canada won’t mind so much if you guys take Toronto off our hands , so maybe there’s hope.
I never said she couldn’t conjure up a media maelstrom. I said she left her office two years ago (which she did) and deprived herself of valuable executive experience (which she did) to go on a book tour (which she did). In case you didn’t notice, this past Sunday, when she started her bus tour and ostensibly her campaign, was two DAYS ago, not two YEARS ago.
Anyone can press for Sharia law all they want. That’s their right as free citizens in a free country. In order for Sharia law to actually take effect, it has to past muster with the broad constituency, something that .8% of the population really isn’t going to be able to influence. And the Sharia issue in Britain and Canada is fairly negligible. Sharia courts in both of those countries are not legally binding unless you, yourself enter into an agreement with those courts to subject yourself to their decisions. It’s kind of like going on Judge Judy.
Furthermore, Britain and Canada operate under modified common laws (though Canada’s pretty much constitutional) making supreme laws more the subject of norms than of tradition. The systems of government are quite different than ours.
Honestly, this whole “Sharia is taking over business” is a fear tactic. It’s attractive because it’s a tangible good v. evil type argument, but when you think about it, there’s really no threat.
To answer the post, no and no and no. But if any of them ultimately are the Republican candidate, against Obama, then I would vote for them.
I believe Palin resigned her governorship because legal expenses related to the ethics charges brought against her in Alaska were burying her family finances, and she saw the book tour as a way to pay them off, and to put those charges behind her. Regardless of the merits of those charges, that was probably her best course of action, though it certainly damaged her credibility as a presidential candidate.
Mark Steyn is constitutionally ineligible to be a U.S. president.
It’s hard to argue that Herman Cain is less qualified to run for president than Barack Obama was in 2007.
Carl, what exactly has Palin done to validate her as a legitimate candidate?
I would prefer it if Tina Fey ran as Palin. I would vote for her.
21: “As Governor, Palin walked off the job, presumably because the press hurt her feelings.”
Well, that settles it, presumably.
trotk, according to you what is required to validate a person as a legitimate candidate?
Carl, if this blog’s resident Bircher (@26) won’t support Palin, she’s got real troubles.
Jon @ 30: “resident Bircher”? What the heck does that mean?
I’ve never heard the term, but looking around, a bircher apparently is a member of “the far right John Birch Society of the late 1950s and early 1960s, whose members claimed that Earl Warren, Dwight Eisenhower, and John Kennedy, among others, were conscious agents of the international Communist conspiracy (and/or the anti-Christ). Robert Welch, a wealthy candy manufacturer, started the Society in 1958 and named it after an American missionary killed by Chinese Communists in 1945 — the first casualty of the Cold War, Welch said. The Birchers were strongest in California, where the organization’s ten thousand eager members stuffed envelopes, walked precincts, and worked phone banks for conservative Republican candidates.” Maybe?
Louis @ ? Don’t read tabloid journalism.
I try to avoid it, but recently a New York Times editor chided his own paper for quoting such stuff, so it seems to be hard to escape. I’m glad circumstances are not as dire as portrayed. 😉
About Toronto: it’s too late for Steyn, I should think.
Rick, I only know what I read. Is there a better excuse? Are you suggesting that you take Palin seriously?
Kirk @ 32: I knew it was a reference to the John Birch Society, but I am no “bircher”. I’m not big on thought police activities, nor the idea of conspiracies behind every tree. The HUAC, which the JBS strongly supported, was an abomination, for its intrusion into the thoughts and beliefs of private citizens. When a citizen ACTS subversively, then government response is appropriate. But not because of professed beliefs or affiliations.
I am pretty consistently libertarian in outlook, though not obsessed with the “free sex and drugs” outlook of the libertarian party.
Carl @ 29:
Intelligence, trustworthiness, leadership, integrity, knowledge of the relevant issues, and wisdom.
Palin: nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope.
Oh Carl, your Palin-fanboy-ism (@6) is too cute.
If being elected to a higher office by a larger constituency is an acceptable reason, then the claim by her supporters that is what Palin will be pursuing should also be acceptable.
Um, yeah, except that wasn’t the reason Palin herself gave. How soon we all forget! She cited the ongoing ethics investigations against her. She also cited her decision not to run for reelection, and her desire not to be a lame-duck governor in light of that. And she referenced her difficulties in coping with the criticism that comes with running for office.
What she didn’t give as a reason for resigningpart-way through the term she was elected to fulfill was her decision to run for President. Also, there’s quite a difference between resigning because you’ve actually been elected to a higher office, and resigning because, you know, maybe, some day, you might consider running for office, possibly.
Oh, I wasn’t accusing you of being a bircher. I was just trying to define the term, which I’d never heard before.
Jon (@30), “Bircher”, really? I think that’s a bit too far, don’t you?
That said DonS (@34), I don’t really think you’re all that “consistently libertarian”, either. Economically, perhaps. But I scored significantly more libertarian on that political compass test than you, and I don’t even think that I’m “consistently libertarian”!
No Palin! The fact that she would even consider running tells me she can’t be trusted, not to mention all the reasons she’s provided in the past.
Given the choices I doubt I’ll vote in either the primary or the general election. I’m hoping a third party in the Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan mold runs.
Palin? Romney? Giuliani? The Republicans are inviting me to dinner, but I think I’ll go to the White House instead. A second helping sounds better than leftovers. 😀
Not just leftovers, Tom (@41), but, at least in Palin’s case, leftovers that were pretty badly burnt the first time they were served. Of those three — Palin, Romney, Giuliani — I’m pretty certain that only Romney has anything like a chance of making it to next summer, though I wouldn’t put money on any of them. I’m willing to bet some relative unknown gets the nomination, someone without current national name recognition. Sort of like John Kerry was in 2004.
Every name put forth for the Republicans is better than Obama. I don’t understand the argument. Do you people really not know who your president is?
1) Really? I mean, really?
2) Even if so, elections are determined by the general electorate, not the Republican primary. Not a single one of those candidates has broad appeal, in my opinion. As tODD said, Romney is the only one who comes close, but God forbid…
Just some whiny demonrats and RINOs, Michael. And you are right – even roadkill would be an improvement over Steve, Barry, Hussein, or whatever name is on the photoshopped BC.
But for orders of magnitude improvement in intelligence and integrity, there is another choice, as Donald Trump is finding out.
Is there a point where Republicans or conservatives can sue Carl Vehse for defamation?
Carl Vehse is the cost of free speech.
Michael – I have to agree with you on “any one of the above.” With the economic consequences of the fundamental transformation of America now beginning to be apparent with businesses holding back on making any economic commitment to additional employees or expanding their businesses because they are uncertain of what the future holds with Obamacare and other transformational policies, any of the above would surely/possibly be better? I suspect any one of them will be elected, whoever it turns out to be. If not, and Obama is re-elected, I expect things to continue the downward slide economically as the U.S. crashes right along with Europe.
The UK is attempting austerity measures, and such would be a good idea here as well – but I am not certain anyone has the political will power to address our dire straits directly and deal with our unsustainable debt and financial crises, and I fear we have nowhere to go but down. Even if we reverse course now, and begin to try and have some financial restraint, I fear it may be to late to salvage our economic system as it is – and collapse will be inevitable. So I think, some restraint, or holding back will certainly be better than none, but no matter which party is elected it may be too little, too late.
I can’t help but think of the economic power and growth that would have come from the millions of aborted U.S. citizens had they been allowed to live.
I believe if Governor Rick Perry runs, he has a real chance.
Many people throw Palin’s leaving the Governors office a problem, I don’t think she had a choice – all the legal bills that pilled up. Having said that, I don’t believe she is suitable to be a presidential candidate. She does have potential for a voice within the cabinet, she’s talented and knowledgable regarding the oil crisis, she has a great deal of experience in that area.
A Perry-Palin ticket!?
Could he be a Democratic party plant? He’s almost a parody of himself, at this point.
Helen – 50
YOU WROTE: “A Perry-Palin ticket!?”
If you are referring to my post @49 – I made it clear that Rick Perry would be a good candidate, I DID NOT STATE that Palin would be a good running mate.
What I stated Helen was this, “She does have potential for a voice within the cabinet,” — a cabinet post is not a participant within a presidential ticket.
Sorry Helen, I forgot the “Yikes!” in your post 50 –
Helen @ 50: I wouldn’t be particularly excited about a Perry-Palin ticket, but it’s hard to see how that rates more of a “Yikes!” than an Obama-Biden ticket. Has there ever been a worse V.P. than Biden? Maybe Agnew, because he was crooked. But, in terms of incompetence and disengagement, Biden is hard to beat.
I really can’t understand how average people would get worked up over this election. Nothing is at stake because all the party elites fundamentally agree beyond the rhetorical level.
Just look at the phony budget deal if you want to see how far the elites really differ.
The Ryan Budget is just red meat for the Tea Parties. When the elites get behind closed doors they drop the act and figure out how much they’ll screw real Americans.
Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich liked using government force to enrich insurance companies with mandates just like Obama. The last two changed their tune as soon as a Democrat started pushing it. How convenient.
The elites just rhetorically differ to play real Americans against each other. Divide and conquer.
Sal — 55
If all you say is right in your mind…… you are sadly mistaken.
From your post, it’s easy to see your ‘give up approach’ to the forthcoming election. What do you think you’ll accomplish with such nonsense. You don’t say anything, your commets amount to verbalism.
“What do you think you’ll accomplish with such nonsense.”
By voting I legitimize the outcome. I think the best thing for America would be if we’d withhold our votes until a candidate stood for office who wasn’t owned by the elites.
Boycotting elections is how pro-democracy groups in Africa deal with their corrupt rulers. I think we ought to take a page from them to de-legitimize our corrupt rulers.
DonS asked (@54), “Has there ever been a worse V.P. than Biden?”, following that up by criticizing Biden’s “disengagement”.
It’s so funny to see people who trumpet their Constitutional bona fides criticize a Vice President for his “disengagement” as being some horrible thing. What’s the matter, Don? Is Biden failing to fulfill his role as President of the Senate? Not adequately, um, succeeding the President? What, exactly, do you expect of the man?
After seeing how involved Cheney was, and what causes he championed, I can definitively answer “yes” to your question of whether there’s ever been a “worse V.P. than Biden”. But I guess Republicans like strong VPs … for some reason.
YOU WROTE: ” Is Biden failing to fulfill his role as President of the Senate? Not adequately, um, succeeding the President? What, exactly, do you expect of the man?”
It would be wise if he could stay awake during important meetings.
“After seeing how involved Cheney was, and what causes he championed, I can definitively answer “yes” to your question of whether there’s ever been a “worse V.P. than Biden”. But I guess Republicans like strong VPs … for some reason.”
Afraid of Cheney and his vast knowledge? – most people who cannot keep up are afraid….. they make @ss’s of themselves every time they open their mouths……. which is ALL TO OFTEN!
Last para of post 59 was my response.
Yes, Grace (@59)….. I’m afraid of Cheney and his vast knowledge….. You’ve hit the nail on the head,….. It’s ALL TO TRUE that I’ve made an @ss out of myself because I cannot keep up….. By gum, you’ve got it…..
Oh, and, just for old times’ sake, let’s revisit this wonderful post fromm someone also named Grace:
Who are YOU to use such language – are you so short on vocabulary skills you must resort to gutter language, to make a point you don’t have?
Poor tODD – 61
There is a vast difference between using @ss’s and the word that was used by one of your commentators, but I don’t expect you to know the difference.
Grace (@62), your rhetorical skills (“Poor _____”) remain, as ever, unparalleled.
There is a vast difference between using @ss’s and the word that was used by one of your commentators, but I don’t expect you to know the difference.
Um, you do know that anyone (including you!) can follow the link I provided to see the word you so stridently objected to, right?
That word? “@ssholes”. So … your virtue hangs on postpending “hole” to your word of choice? Or is it the at-sign substitution that makes your curse word okay? Legalism is so hard to figure out.
If you don’t know the difference between an @ss and the word your commenter made, I can’t help you, there’s a vast difference, I now KNOW you are unable to distinguish the difference.
It’s not “legalism”, it’s studpidiy on your part!
tODD @ 58: I didn’t mean that Biden needed to be taking presidential responsibilities. I meant simply that he should be engaged in life. Grace mentioned the sleeping incident. That was pretty egregious. Now, admittedly, anyone can have a blooper moment. Or a few. But, you shouldn’t be able to readily find a top ten blooper loop like this one: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1895156_1894977_1846609,00.html At least, not for a person who is first in line for the office of president. The primary job of the Vice President, aside from presiding over the Senate, is to prepare oneself for the eventuality of becoming president, temporarily or for the remainder of the president’s term, under the difficult circumstances of the president becoming unfit for duty, when the country will be naturally vulnerable and concerned. Part of that preparation involves preparing the country to be confident in your ability to fulfill that duty, and to guide the nation through the ensuing crisis of leadership and mourning of the president’s serious illness or death. In no way has Biden done that.
Grace (@64), your inability to argue for a distinction between “@ss and the word your commenter made” speaks to the legalism involved — this word good, that word bad, because you say so, I guess. This is all the more true when you act all aghast at the use of the semi-bowdlerized word “@sshole”, yet show no compunction in (non-ironically, sadly) referring to, and I quote, “studpidiy [sic] on your part”. I guess Matthew 5:22 doesn’t apply to you?
Moallen @48: That is a thoughtful response.
A Herman Cain- Sarah Palin ticket?
Bumper sticker: “Cain and Unable, 2012”.
Finally someone is makin’ some sense! Now that’s entertainment!!! :>
I meant :O :O :O
Let’s see if those emoticons work (I hate doing html).
Oh cra. . . oops, is Grace watching?
I think if you append “hole” to “cr@p,” Grace won’t mind.
Did no one mention Ron Paul? He’s our only hope!
Maybe this guy will work if they let him have his PAC.
Bolton-Bachmann Bachmann- Bolton Carol-CS
C-CS (@76), I assume you’re referrring to politico-musical dream team Michael Bolton and Randy Bachman (of Bachman–Turner Overdrive), is that correct?