The Republican Field To Take On Hillary

[Pointedstick]

And for what it's worth...it would be great electing a woman to the Presidency, but Hillary Clinton makes me squirm.

As a woman yourself, why?  Where's your solidarity, sister!

As a man, you should be rooting for Obama then, right?

[WiseOne]

And for what it's worth...it would be great electing a woman to the Presidency, but Hillary Clinton makes me squirm.

As a woman yourself, why?  Where's your solidarity, sister!

As a man, you should be rooting for Obama then, right?

Not unless he's African-American   

I WISH there were a female candidate I could support but alas no, and anyway that's not so high on my checklist for Presidential candidates.  Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman are primarily comic relief.  There's a chance that Elizabeth Warren will try to run in the Democratic primary, but she's way too far left to be a viable candidate.

Re Chris Christie, why do you say that?  He is a centrist/moderate Republican which might work very well in a general election.  He's known best in NJ for winning a fight against the teacher's union, and keeping a lid on the state budget.  Neither of those sounds Democrat to me.  If you mean he's not aligned with the Tea Party...well, thank heavens no.  His biggest issue is going to be the mess of corruption that NJ is famous for, and that he's certainly involved in up to his neck.  And of course "Bridgegate".

[WiseOne]

Also, a centrist Republican, no matter how he would play in the general election, IMO has NO CHANCE of getting the nomination.
You probably don't know many people who have been to a Republican state convention. I have. Believe me, they don't like moderates or centrists; in fact, some of them even supported Rick (shudder) Santorum in 2012, if that tells you anything!

If that's true, then this is a HUGE problem for the GOP.  They're either going to have to get over it and focus on electable candidates, or Hillary will be our next President.

I was also sort of hoping that the primary elections counted for something.  Are you saying that the delegates can overrule the voters at will??

[Stunt]

While I agree a Republican is likely to be a better manager of policy and the economy, I disagree with the idea of nominating for electability. Typically this results in a watered down candidate without conviction, less motivated electorate and someone seen as inspirational.

Look at the last few cycles...Romney, McCain were moderates and "electable" according to those voting I the primary, Kerry and Gore were considered centrist. Moderates lose elections, just look at the composition of congress to see the polarization.

Rather than a moderate or centrist candidate, I would love to see some passionate candidates that have policy that are outside the party norm. Like Bush and immigration reform. Or a republican supportive of a minimum wage. Or a democrat supporting Keystone. That's where true moderates earn my respect - being pragmatic and standing up for what they believe even if I don't agree. Anything to get government functioning once again.

[Benko]

"Electable moderates" is how the Rs keep losing.

Stunt is right.

[MachineGhost]

"Electable moderates" is how the Rs keep losing.

Stunt is right.

What about the non-electable Santorum-type nutjobs?  It seems the Republicans have a problem.  The political center has shifted so far to the right that all that is left to be less moderate is nutjobs.  It would actually help if the Democrats crossed over into being a true left-wing party.

[Benko]

It would actually help if the Democrats crossed over into being a true left-wing party.

Forgetting the crony capitalism, you want someone left of Obama?  more taxes, more regulations, more spending, more freebies e.g. community college? Global warming remedies, etc?

So Elizabeth Warren is your idea of a suitable person?

What about the non-electable Santorum-type nutjobs?

Because the only choice is Santorum or a moderate?  Methinks religion is your red flag (wave a red flag and the bull goes nuts and attacks).

The political center has shifted so far to the right

Please explain.  The country has been shifting leftward for decades.  I cannot fathom how you could say this. 

[WiseOne]

I'm with MachineGhost.  If you're correct, then Republican candidates are either wimpy moderates who lose elections, or  lunatic nutjobs who get a lot of attention from the fringes during the primaries, but lose the election because normal people can't stomach them. 

I wouldn't put up McCain and Romney as ideal Republican moderate candidates.  But there are a couple of politicians in the field who might manage not to self-destruct during the campaign.  Obama is disliked enough, and the economy is good enough, that there really is a chance.

[D1984]

Please explain.  The country has been shifting leftward for decades.  I cannot fathom how you could say this.

How specifically has it been shifting leftward? Can you imagine a Republican presidential candidate supporting universal healthcare and a quasi-guaranteed income and environmental regulation and affirmative action like Nixon did? Or  accepting 80 or 90% top tax rates and being supportive (to the point of calling those inside and outside his party who disagreed with him on this "stupid" and speaking of their negligible numbers) of social security, farm programs, and unemployment insurance (not to mention being against the military industrial complex) like Eisenhower was? Or being willing to accept a capital gains tax rate that was the same as the earned income rate and closing down tax loopholes like Reagan did (not even considering the several tax hikes he compromised with the Democrats and accepted and signed in the early 80s...yeah, the tax hikes might not have been what he wanted nor his idea, but he was at least open to compromise...not like these guys who wouldn't be willing to take TEN TO ONE in spending cuts for tax hikes; see http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/politi ... 031484.php )? Or being willing to speak things about Christianity and the religious right like Goldwater said (look it up...it wasn't anything particularly nice)?

For that matter, economically we have much lower tax rates than prevailed from the 30s to the mid 80s, the regulatory environment has become tougher in some ways (Obamacare and certain types of environmental regs come immediately to mind) but much easier in others (for instance, in the 1950s through the early 80s, the government heavily regulated (to the point of basically blocking any new competition in any case where the competition crossed state lines) airlines, trucking, interstate busing, railroads, and maritime shipping, they told banks what products they could and could not offer and what rates they could pay on deposits--and those banks weren't even legally allowed to open interstate branches in most cases until the early 90s and the Riegle-Neal Act, companies like Citigroup that combined insurance and banking couldn't even legally exist until 1999 thanks to Glass-Steagall, brokerage rates were set and regulated at one level and there was no competition in them until the 1970s--which meant stock commissions of $100 or so except on odd lots and mutual fund sales loads of 8.5%, oil prices were controlled during some of this period, the government regulated the wellhead price of natural gas from 1956 on to the time it was deregulated in the early 80s, interstate electricity wholesale pricing was regulated--and interstate wholesale selling of electricity was severely limited by law on top of that until the EPACT of 1992, telephone service was a strictly regulated monopoly in most areas until the mid 80s and telecom wasn't fully deregulated until 1996, and agencies like the ICC and the FRA and FAA could--and did, until deregulation in the late 70s and early 80s-- literally tell a business that it could not abandon a money losing operation because the "public good" had to be served first.

Oh, and the minimum wage was over $8 or $9 or $10 an hour in today's money for much of this period, it was (in almost all of the south and some of the southwest, anyway) illegal to let someone of the "wrong" race eat in a restaurant even if it was your own restaurant and you were willing to let them be there as they were paying customers, the government rationed goods and set price controls on certain "essential" items like steel and oil during much of the 1940s and early 50s, the USPS postal inspectors could have you arrested (up until the early 60s, at least) for sending dirty pictures via the mail, and to top it off all, from 1933 to 1974 you could (at least in theory) actually be thrown in JAIL and fined (or have your assets confiscated) for owning gold bullion.

So yeah, we've become a lot more heavily regulated in some ways...in others, not so much.

If, on the other hand, by "turning leftward" you aren't talking about increased economic regulation but instead about increased personal liberties (like, y'know....women being able to vote, or married couples who hate each other being allowed to legally separate instead of having to fake an affair and then run off to Reno for a quickie divorce, or otherwise perfectly law abiding citizens not being jailed for possessing some flowering buds of a certain green plant, or blacks being legally permitted to use the same restrooms and water fountains as whites, or gays not being beaten up and treated as second class citizens and arrested for consensual sex acts but instead being treated equally and <GASP> allowed to marry just like straights can)...well, I'm sorry, but I don't see those as a problem per se...do you?

[Benko]

I'm with MachineGhost.  If you're correct, then Republican candidates are either wimpy moderates who lose elections, or  lunatic nutjobs who get a lot of attention from the fringes during the primaries, but lose the election because normal people can't stomach them. 

That was sarcasm.

[MachineGhost]

So Elizabeth Warren is your idea of a suitable person?

No, she's not left-wing enough.  She's just another rich white upper class Ivy League elitist on the pro-consumer shtick (which does have its public policy virtures against Wall Street's exploitation).  I'm talking about GENUINE socialist leftwingnuts like you would find in Cuba, Venezeula, Belarus, etc...  Although Warren would generate conservative opposition, the question is ... is she far enough removed from the rightward-shifted political center to allow Republican moderates to flourish against her?  I don't think so.  She will have the Top 1% chanters backing her and not without good reason.  Even I cannot stand the Koch brothers for being the sheer hypocrites that they are and I'm no Democrat liberal.

What about the non-electable Santorum-type nutjobs?

Because the only choice is Santorum or a moderate?  Methinks religion is your red flag (wave a red flag and the bull goes nuts and attacks).
[/quote]

I use religion as a marker for intolerance.  The more publically religious someone who is seeking power professes to be, the more intolerant they are.  It is an inverse relationship.  Look at ISIS.  You doubt Santorum or his ilk would not try to impose his strict Puritan whackyness onto the rest of the country?  That is exactly why he is not electable.

The political center has shifted so far to the right

Please explain.  The country has been shifting leftward for decades.  I cannot fathom how you could say this.
[/quote]

What D1984 said!!!  We've been shifting to the right ever since JFK, Nixon, Thatcher, Reagan, Velvet Revolution, fall of the Wall, etc..  Maybe you mean we shifted to the left socially?  That I agree with.  We've both shifted to the left socially and to the right economically.  Although if you look at a political map, there is still a huge gap in terms of social liberties to overcome.  The Republican Party can't take full advantage of it because of the nutjobs in its base.

[MachineGhost]

Now the question is whether the Republican bigwigs will block any possibility of his being considered, by cheating, as they did to his father last time. I have some hope in that direction, as I've heard Reince Priebus (spit) indicate that he knows that the reason Romney lost was because the libertarian wing was cheated out of the opportunity to support Ron.

Boehner won't allow it, which is why the only chance is if Paul turns into the third party due in 2016 with the Koch brother's filthy lucre backing.

Everyone easily forgets that politicans are in this for their own self-interest; whatever marketing fiction B.S. they spout off is just part of the game to attract the tenous support they require to keep playing.  Genuine statemen no longer exist.  A whore is as temporary as a politican's pie hole flapping; it makes you feel good but then you're left with acrimony and dissatisfaction afterwards (emotionally evolved humans, anyway!).

Cheney, though, is in a league of his own...  my expression about him was best captured in the movie 2001.

[Libertarian666]

Now the question is whether the Republican bigwigs will block any possibility of his being considered, by cheating, as they did to his father last time. I have some hope in that direction, as I've heard Reince Priebus (spit) indicate that he knows that the reason Romney lost was because the libertarian wing was cheated out of the opportunity to support Ron.

Boehner won't allow it, which is why the only chance is if Paul turns into the third party due in 2016 with the Koch brother's filthy lucre backing.

Everyone easily forgets that politicans are in this for their own self-interest; whatever marketing fiction B.S. they spout off is just part of the game to attract the tenous support they require to keep playing.  Genuine statemen no longer exist.  A whore is as temporary as a politican's pie hole flapping; it makes you feel good but then you're left with acrimony and dissatisfaction afterwards (emotionally evolved humans, anyway!).

Cheney, though, is in a league of his own...  my expression about him was best captured in the movie 2001.

What does Boehner have to do with who gets to be the R nominee for President? I must be missing something here.

[MachineGhost]

What does Boehner have to do with who gets to be the R nominee for President? I must be missing something here.

Boehner is Speaker of the House aka President in waiting if both Obama and Biden bite the ghost.  So he has a lot of power.  Here's but a small taste:

Fans of Republican Congressman Ron Paul suffered another defeat in their quest for acceptance in the GOP this week, with House Speaker John Boehner's decision to remove four libertarian-friendly Republican Congressmen from top congressional committees.

Five GOP leadership aides, speaking anonymously because a decision isn't final, say incoming House Speaker John Boehner has discussed ways to prevent Paul from becoming chairman or to keep him on a tight leash if he does. If Boehner, who will help determine who gets to chair subcommittees as early as Dec. 8, rejects Paul, he may have to contend with thousands of grassroots supporters and dozens of younger lawmakers who see Paul as a hero.

[Libertarian666]

What does Boehner have to do with who gets to be the R nominee for President? I must be missing something here.

Boehner is Speaker of the House aka President in waiting if both Obama and Biden bite the ghost.  So he has a lot of power.  Here's but a small taste:

Fans of Republican Congressman Ron Paul suffered another defeat in their quest for acceptance in the GOP this week, with House Speaker John Boehner's decision to remove four libertarian-friendly Republican Congressmen from top congressional committees.

Five GOP leadership aides, speaking anonymously because a decision isn't final, say incoming House Speaker John Boehner has discussed ways to prevent Paul from becoming chairman or to keep him on a tight leash if he does. If Boehner, who will help determine who gets to chair subcommittees as early as Dec. 8, rejects Paul, he may have to contend with thousands of grassroots supporters and dozens of younger lawmakers who see Paul as a hero.

None of which has anything to do with the Republican nomination for President.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Boehner is in a position of power, he is an establishment politics for the sake of politics politician, he gives allegiance/support to the big money donators not "the people", and he uses his power to give important spots to his own kind. that doesn't mean he makes any unilateral decisions about who can and cant win a primary, but he is certainly a player in the crony establishment that does..

[MachineGhost]

None of which has anything to do with the Republican nomination for President.
Thanks for clearing that up.

I guess you're not getting it.  Boehner is part of the Establishment.  Rand has no chance of getting the Republican nomination anymore than Paul did.

[Libertarian666]

None of which has anything to do with the Republican nomination for President.
Thanks for clearing that up.

I guess you're not getting it.  Boehner is part of the Establishment.  Rand has no chance of getting the Republican nomination anymore than Paul did.

Ok, so you have shown that there is at least one member of the Establishment who doesn't like the Pauls.
That PROVES that Rand won't get the nomination, because the Establishment is like the Borg (assuming I have my sci-fi references correct), which always acts as one.
I can't imagine any way to argue with logic like that, so I won't.

[Pointedstick]

Okay, so Christie and Paul are flaming out and proving to have too many drawbacks to compete.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/c ... ml?hp=t1_r

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/r ... l?hp=b3_r2

That leaves Bush, Walker, and Rubio. Bush has boatloads of cash, Walker has conservative bona-fides, and Rubio is young, handsome, and hispanic. Seems like a decent set of contenders.

[MachineGhost]

Okay, so Christie and Paul are flaming out and proving to have too many drawbacks to compete.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/c ... ml?hp=t1_r

No surprise there.  He's too "ready to rumble" for the mirage and bullshit of politics.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/r ... l?hp=b3_r2

It doesn't seem to have affected his standing in the polls.  He's still right below Rubio who is right below Bush.  Walker, however, has tanked to below even Romney.  What did Walker do to screw up this week?  But its true the Republcan Establishment isn't going to support Rand -- we all know that!

I thought this was particular revealing in terms of ideological cult cognitive dissonance:

During a Sunday afternoon speech at the Koch forum , Paul drew skepticism among some donors by touting tax breaks as a means of spurring economic growth in blighted inner cities. That stance is anathema to the brand of small-government conservatism espoused by the industrialist brothers and many of their network’s donors, who object to marketplace interference. Even Levin admitted she was “a bit surprised. But he’s just exploring ideas right now. People didn’t quite understand where he was coming from.”?

I think a Bush vs Rubio showdown will be very interesting in terms of seeing exactly how different they are.  As a Hispanic in a conservative party, I think Rubio takes his precarious position seriously.

[Pointedstick]

Okay, so Christie and Paul are flaming out and proving to have too many drawbacks to compete.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/c ... ml?hp=t1_r

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/r ... l?hp=b3_r2

That leaves Bush, Walker, and Rubio. Bush has boatloads of cash, Walker has conservative bona-fides, and Rubio is young, handsome, and hispanic. Seems like a decent set of contenders.

The Rand Paul article makes me like him even more, which I'm sure means the Republican establishment will not like him.

I certainly feel the same way, but it's not up to people like us.

I think Bush will win the nomination handily, if he runs.  Then we can have Clinton v. Bush, this time with a better Bush and a worse Clinton.

I dunno. He's certainly got the money and the executive experience, but so did his brother, and his name and family are liabilities at this point. In a primary, he can easily be dinged for being a RINO.

[MachineGhost]

I dunno. He's certainly got the money and the executive experience, but so did his brother, and his name and family are liabilities at this point. In a primary, he can easily be dinged for being a RINO

If only we could resurrect Barry Goldwater from his grave.

Cue fanfare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_7X1LAd3o0

[madbean]

I think Bush will win the nomination handily, if he runs.  Then we can have Clinton v. Bush, this time with a better Bush and a worse Clinton.

A friend of mine believes the POTUS is nothing more than a puppet selected by some cabal that includes the Council on Foreign Relations, the Rothchilds, and the illuminati.

I've always thought this was nutty stuff but if we end up with Clinton vs Bush I may start believing it myself.

[Benko]

Forget the rhino label, drudge* had a number of Bush's comments on immigration on his page, and that alone will turn lots of people off.  Though I'm not sure anyone save Cruz is better on that topic.

*drudge was in the tank big time for Romney last time, so he may continue to be part of the problem.

[Pointedstick]

I agree that it's silly. But the fact that he is so scary to the establishment that they are going out of their way to denigrate him is a bad thing, not a badge of honor to wear. You need the support of the establishment. There's only so far from normal you can deviate before the "normal" people reject you and you need to seek support elsewhere. In modern U.S. electoral politics, outside of the two "normal" party establishments, there is no meaningful support to be had that can yield real power. It's a dead end. I understand that Paul is trying to change his party from within, which is a much better strategy, but he walks a fine line between that and alienating the people whose support he needs. It's a tough situation, to be sure.

[MachineGhost]

Forget the rhino label, drudge* had a number of Bush's comments on immigration on his page, and that alone will turn lots of people off.  Though I'm not sure anyone save Cruz is better on that topic.

*drudge was in the tank big time for Romney last time, so he may continue to be part of the problem.

I'm guessing Bush is libertarian on immigration since I know you're anti-immigration, so here's why: Bush's wife is Hispanic.