Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You might just get Huckabee as the nominee. He currently has the highest net favorable rating of realistic potential GOP contenders for the 2012 nomination. Within GOP, Huckabee Most Liked, Palin Best Known
Nothing's guaranteed, of course -- the nomination is a long way off, still at least a year away and probably longer.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,806,430 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by stayinformed40
I will second that!
JC Watts is more of a natural leader, however, I think it's beyond debate that Alan Keyes would be a superior president for a number of reasons, at the fundamental level he doesn't hate this nation, he realizes that this planet is not chomping at the bit to become a giant brotherhood of man and I'll wager that he wouldn't get screwed by a dirty salesman at a car dealership. He can also sing, drives the ball about 270 yards playing a light fade and he can splash a 20' jumper after a crossover. He did crack up a little after his daughter announced her homosexuality, though.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,806,430 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur
You might just get Huckabee as the nominee. He currently has the highest net favorable rating of realistic potential GOP contenders for the 2012 nomination. Within GOP, Huckabee Most Liked, Palin Best Known
Nothing's guaranteed, of course -- the nomination is a long way off, still at least a year away and probably longer.
Watch out for Perry. I think he's going to either get the nomination or be the VP candidate.
Watch out for Perry. I think he's going to either get the nomination or be the VP candidate.
Few politicians who ever run for President definitively rule it out. Perry hyas definitively ruled it out. Sure, he could flip, but he'll go nowhere. The GOP doesn't nominate dark horses. It either nominates established candidates long-involved in national politics (including previous nomination bids) or candidates the GOP infrastructure has rallied around (ex., Bush in 2000). Neither description fits Perry.
Maybe he runs, but there is absolutely no sign whatsoever that he will.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,806,430 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur
Few politicians who ever run for President definitively rule it out. Perry hyas definitively ruled it out. Sure, he could flip, but he'll go nowhere. The GOP doesn't nominate dark horses. It either nominates established candidates long-involved in national politics (including previous nomination bids) or candidates the GOP infrastructure has rallied around (ex., Bush in 2000). Neither description fits Perry.
Maybe he runs, but there is absolutely no sign whatsoever that he will.
Remember George W. Bush? Sure, he had a name but he also had a long rap sheet with alcohol, mediocrity, cocaine and was horribly vulnerable to attack on grounds of stupidity. Perry has a fine pedigree and has demonstrated complete dominance in Texas. A long-serving US Senator with broad, crossover appeal couldn't unseat him. With the undeniable "red-shift" that we are witnessing right now he could be a perfect fit.
Perry is giving all kinds of signs that he will run next fall. Why would he be showing up at tea party rallies in New England and on the East Coast, publishing a book, getting "NRA/Concealed Carry/Hunting Friendly" snippets about shooting coyotes while on his daily jog on drudgereport if he were not running for president? He sounds definitive when he avoids the question about his intention to run, but it's all legal double-speak and answering questions with questions. He hasn't said anything that can be construed as a literal and definitive "I, Rick Perry, will not run for president in 2012".
Last edited by jimboburnsy; 01-10-2011 at 11:18 PM..
Remember George W. Bush? Sure, he had a name but he also had a long rap sheet with alcohol, mediocrity, cocaine and was horribly vulnerable to attack on grounds of stupidity. Perry has a fine pedigree and has demonstrated complete dominance in Texas. A long-serving US Senator with broad, crossover appeal couldn't unseat him. With the undeniable "red-shift" that we are witnessing right now he could be a perfect fit.
Yep, I remember him. He was lapping the field in the polls in late 1998 (earlier in that cycle than we are now in this cycle) and was fundraising in the first half of 1999 (the first half of 2011, where we are now, is the corresponding time-frame) was off the charts. Bush has raised whopping 36.2 million - CNN
The GOP establishment had fully backed Bush by this time 12 years ago. That's why he won. If pedigree had meant anything, Forbes would have won. It didn't - a guy with alcohol problems in the past and a guy with marital problems in the past were the top two contenders. Because pedigree simply doesn't matter. It's all but irrelevant.
Quote:
Perry is giving all kinds of signs that he will run next fall. Why would he be showing up at tea party rallies in New England and on the East Coast, publishing a book, getting "NRA/Concealed Carry/Hunting Friendly" snippets about shooting coyotes while on his daily jog on drudgereport if he were not running for president? He sounds definitive when he avoids the question about his intention to run, but it's all legal double-speak and answering questions with questions. He hasn't said anything that can be construed as a literal and definitive "I, Rick Perry, will not run for president in 2012".
"A definite no, brother."
-- Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), in an interview with Fox News, when pressed on whether it was "definite maybe" he would run for president in 2012. December 26, 2010 Quote of the Day#
Once again, in open nominations for President the GOP nominates candidates who have previously run for President (McCain, Dole, GHW Bush, Reagan, Nixon) or, absent such an individual in the race, someone the GOP establishment has rallied behind and is massively supporting in both the polls and with cash (GW Bush). Rick Perry does not fit either of those profiles.
This is not my opinion or my preference, it is just an observation of how the GOP behaves when selecting Presidential nominees.
The thing is, I actually believe it. I think that almost anyone could do better. I do not understand the trust and admiration that people have for him.
Hate is a strong word. I dislike his policies. I do not hate him.
I admired him at first because of things like this:
"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest. Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism."
It was just so true, but no one else would say it. Actual thought provoking words. Not the same old "ILIKEJESUS" or "AMERICALIBERTYPATRIOTISMFREEDOM" stuff.
But now hes too worried about what the fools on the right will think, so he tones down on it, thinking it will make them like him...or atleast not demonize him, but it won't. They'll sink as low as they can, and they'll stay there, no matter what...
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,806,430 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur
Yep, I remember him. He was lapping the field in the polls in late 1998 (earlier in that cycle than we are now in this cycle) and was fundraising in the first half of 1999 (the first half of 2011, where we are now, is the corresponding time-frame) was off the charts. Bush has raised whopping 36.2 million - CNN
The GOP establishment had fully backed Bush by this time 12 years ago. That's why he won. If pedigree had meant anything, Forbes would have won. It didn't - a guy with alcohol problems in the past and a guy with marital problems in the past were the top two contenders. Because pedigree simply doesn't matter. It's all but irrelevant.
"A definite no, brother."
-- Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), in an interview with Fox News, when pressed on whether it was "definite maybe" he would run for president in 2012. December 26, 2010 Quote of the Day#
Once again, in open nominations for President the GOP nominates candidates who have previously run for President (McCain, Dole, GHW Bush, Reagan, Nixon) or, absent such an individual in the race, someone the GOP establishment has rallied behind and is massively supporting in both the polls and with cash (GW Bush). Rick Perry does not fit either of those profiles.
This is not my opinion or my preference, it is just an observation of how the GOP behaves when selecting Presidential nominees.
I guess I didn't watch enough Fox over the break... I'm still not sure how much weight a harried statement carries, but that does change my outlook considerably.
With regard to pedigree, I think we're talking about different things. I used pedigree interchangeably with "curriculum vitae", and Forbes still doesn't have public office or government experience (although you could argue that your assertion still holds water, particularly considering our present CIC).
Hillary Clinton was lapping the polls in 2007 - didn't work out so hot for her. Bush 41 was so far ahead he didn't even campaign leading into '96. Early leads are also all but irrelevant.
Donald Trump and Marco Rubio. DH likes Trump because he sees him as another "Pat Buchanan"; me, because I think he has the financial savvy to help get the U.S. economy out of this mess.
I guess I didn't watch enough Fox over the break... I'm still not sure how much weight a harried statement carries, but that does change my outlook considerably.
With regard to pedigree, I think we're talking about different things. I used pedigree interchangeably with "curriculum vitae", and Forbes still doesn't have public office or government experience (although you could argue that your assertion still holds water, particularly considering our present CIC).
Hillary Clinton was lapping the polls in 2007 - didn't work out so hot for her.Bush 41 was so far ahead he didn't even campaign leading into '96. Early leads are also all but irrelevant.
Yep.
Notice I was talking specifically about the GOP nomination process. The Democratic Party periodically nominates dark horse candidates; the Republican Party does not. How Senator Clinton was doing in the polls in 2007 for the Democratic nomination is utterly irrelevant and inapplicable to how pre-nomination polling for Republican candidates predicts success.
No.
Bush 41 never sought the 1996 Presidential nomination, never suggested he would seek it, was never thought to be a candidate, and was never on the radar. Period. Bob Dole was ahead. Way ahead. From early 1995, when major polling on the race began, all the way through the nomination. And, of course, Dole won the nomination. AllPolitics - A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll - February 23-25, 1996
Again, this is how Republicans select Presidential nominees.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
