Your Choice for 2012

[Space Patroller]

Especially the way they moved up the election season to the week before the polls close.

My Choice Romney-Jindal

[Devils_Advocate]

I'd like Paul - Schiff. Or Schiff - Paul. Assuming Schiff runs in '10, then wins.

If there isn't a good libertarian candidate and we get another Barr, I'll vote Republican (holding my nose). Romney-Jindal sounds good, but I think Romney - McConell would be better. 2 powerful, famous Republicans who could really rally the base and opposition. Romney - Gulliani might be good, too. Get the base Republicans with Romney, and the dissatisfied indies/moderates/dems with Gulliani. Romney's deffinitley the best choice for President, though. Him or McConell. Steele might be good, but only if he can prove he won't keep splitting the party.

[Space Patroller]

I'd like Paul - Schiff. Or Schiff - Paul. Assuming Schiff runs in '10, then wins.

If there isn't a good libertarian candidate and we get another Barr, I'll vote Republican (holding my nose). Romney-Jindal sounds good, but I think Romney - McConell would be better. 2 powerful, famous Republicans who could really rally the base and opposition. Romney - Gulliani might be good, too. Get the base Republicans with Romney, and the dissatisfied indies/moderates/dems with Gulliani. Romney's deffinitley the best choice for President, though. Him or McConell. Steele might be good, but only if he can prove he won't keep splitting the party.

Romney-McConnell? pretty good, too, but Jindal is fairly young and Romeny has only two terms at best. To Whom to pass the baton? Don't forget Bush I won on Reagan's coattails them promptly sold out with things like the tax increase, 'Assault Weapons Ban". CFC's legislation. We read his lips, too bad telepathy was not an option. Bobby Jindal looks pretty spot on from here and will have a record to back him up by 2012 as an administrator.

Why court the moderates and Dems? First, my dogs come to me. Haven't we been castrated enough with that? We only have one left, you know. Do the names "Gerry Ford", "George Bush" "Bob Dole [who bragged about his part in creating Food Stamps]" and "John McCain" ring a bell? Have you ever read GREAT MODERATES OF HISTORY? Moderates are who they are because they've got crabs in icewater for integrity. We don't have "mushy moderate" for nothing and what did Mr. Miagi say about the middle of the road? If there are dissatisfied Dems. they'll come to us or not depending on how dissatisfied they are. Besides, by his last campaign tactic Giuliano proved what he had for political stones: And principles!

Edited March 8, 2009 by Space Patroller

[K-Mac]

Especially the way they moved up the election season to the week before the polls close.

My Choice Romney-Jindal

Yeah, because "conservative", religious politicians (one of which fouled up health care in his home state while governor) are just what we need to fix this mess.

[Maximus]

I'm looking forward to a Cthulhu/Dagon ticket.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Maximus

[01503]

Morris '12!

"Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon"

[Space Patroller]

I'm looking forward to a Cthulhu/Dagon ticket.

Don't we have that already? Look at the way the governmnet's tantacles are getting into everything.

Then we'll really be living the life of R'lyhl

Then you'll be saying that he hastur go (notice, I WROTE it, not said it; Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote it for 20 years and she didn't suffer from it, and I didn't captalize the first letter so I'm safe).

Then we can listen to "Waitley Waitly, Don't Tell Me".

What'll the campaign theme song be? Octopus' Garden?

Edited March 8, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Space Patroller]

Yeah, because "conservative", religious politicians (one of which fouled up health care in his home state while governor) are just what we need to fix this mess.

A situration of which he had as much control as a toddler in a jetliner cockpit. This is the Peoples' Republic of 'assachussetts. right next to the USSRI both aka Soviet Union West. Someone forgot to tell these dummies that Communism is dead.

On the other hand, he was able to win in the PRM so he's got some attraction, he did try to bring the Big Dig under control and did make a career of bringing failing businesses back from near-death experiences (two that come to mind are Staples and The Sprots Authority), for which he was attacked by McCain; from the Left. Meybe you'd rather have a religious liberal?

The fact is that we're gonna end up with sombody so are there any alternatives that have a realistic shot?

That's why I put this up.

[khaight]

Jindal, Palin and Sanford are all religionists -- opposed to abortion, supportive of teaching 'intelligent design' in public schools, etc. For those who consider breaking the religion-freedom link a vital political necessity, none of those three look acceptable. Romney's Mormonism I'm less sure about; I don't know how seriously he takes it. But based on Romney's actions as governor of Massachusetts I don't think he's the kind of principled pro-capitalist we need. RomneyCare is quintessential Republican fascism -- take a collectivist concept like government health care, wrap the compulsion in a thin veneer of market-based pseudo-choice and call it freedom. Count me out.

The sad truth is that I don't see a GOP candidate waiting in the wings that I think would be any good. The best outcome I can see for the semi-near future is gridlock. Try to get enough Republicans into Congress to block the worst of Obama's initiatives, and maintain focus on intellectual activism to change the culture.

(For sheer entertainment value I'd like to see Palin-Jindal. Joe Biden would be the token white male. It sounds like a joke: "A black guy, a woman, an Indian and an idiot walk into a bar...")

[Bastian Hayek]

I don't know about the argument against religion. You have to wait and see how the judges look like after the Obama term. There will probably be no chance of any decision against abortion even under a very Christian president 2012. Furthermore, Sanford doesn't seem to be thrilled with injecting religion into politics. I heard somewhere that he even is a closet Austrian. I think he would be the best choice of what is currently there..

And he gains momentum: http://washingtonindependent.com/35222/con...anford-for-2012

I am betting on Sanford, and hope he picks Schiff Economic Advisor, but someone less libertarian National Security Advisor (how bout Peikoff?? )

Edited March 23, 2009 by Bastian Hayek

[RussK]

I didn't vote in the last election (2008), I was out of country and unable to follow the process (of which I'm glad), and I may not vote in 2012 unless the GOP changes substantially.

[K-Mac]

Meybe you'd rather have a religious liberal?

No. I would prefer to have a rational person that defends capitalism and rights.

The fact is that we're gonna end up with sombody so are there any alternatives that have a realistic shot?

There probably won't be any alternatives with a realistic shot for quite some time (until America has a philosophical turn around), but that doesn't mean I have to pretend to like or accept someone like Mitt Romney. I mean, that article alone tells me all I need to know about him and it makes me sick to think he is from the party that says they support capitalism. No wonder so many people don't understand and hate capitalism!

[Space Patroller]

I didn't vote in the last election (2008), I was out of country and unable to follow the process (of which I'm glad), and I may not vote in 2012 unless the GOP changes substantially.

That's why I "supported [emphasis on the quotes]" Obama. It's called toughlove.

As a realist, meaning looking at who stood what chance and was the closest to what I wanted, my first choice was Romney. He was self-made, (though he did have the experience of a business family behind him), he bought and fixed broken companies like Staples and the Sports Authority (does anyone want to duke out the relevence of THAT with me? Step right up and make sure you have your first-aid kit with you), he got elected in a liberal Democrat state as a moderately conservative Republican (a rather prodigious feat; granted Shannon O'Brien was such a screechy bitch that she could make Mother Therasa drop the F-bomb, and blew a 20-point lead, but this is still the Peoples' Republic of Massatuschitts where, If Satan was a Democrat and Jesus Christ was a Republican...) which meant that he had something going for him, and McCain played the class warfare card against him. Huckabee was a bit of a wingnut. On the Democrat side my choice was Hilary on the basis of competence and having been there before. To be fair, I did take into account the hundreds of third-party candidates who have been successfully elected to office.

Since that fell through, thanks to an alliance between the whackjob Christians and McCainiacs, I had to chooxe between McCain and Obama. I've chronicaled McCain's transgressions elsewhere and said "The problem with Obama is that he is an empty suit [and may yet come to some good]: The problem with McCain is that he is not".

For me, the issue of religion was off the table. Actually it was never ON the table since there was no shot at a Galt-D'Ancona ticket (also, in 1964, in the famous Playboy interview with Alvin Toffler, asked if shw would run for President, Rand said "No; and I hope you don't hate me enough to wish that on me") I'd have to work with what I could. Or, I could do what many Objectivists seem to do; wait and pray that the perfect ticket comes along, which they will stilll be doing in 3712. It's the "Everybody talks about a new world in the moring" Syndrome. That does not mean that there have not been elections that I've sat out (1992) and that there will not be elections that I will sit out, it's just that this was not one of them (the fact is that I did not vote because I saw no need to bestir myself to participate physically in a pretty certain outcome and I've been around long enough to get the picture; i.e. I can take "yes" for an answer. but it was not a sit-out in the sense of "Ah; six of one, half-dozen of the other"). However, if things go as they have been going, I may just drop out of the system entirely.

Adressing your statement. Had McCain won the final, there would be no impetus or opportunity for the GOP to make the substantial changes we want. Whether or not they do so now depends on whether or not they are total idiots*10^4.394. On that matter, the jury is still out.

[TheEgoist]

Giuliani is a realistic choice. I would support him.

How about Denis Leary? Now there is f***in change I can believe in, goddamnit.

[RussK]

That's why I "supported [emphasis on the quotes]" Obama. It's called toughlove.

...

Adressing your statement. Had McCain won the final, there would be no impetus or opportunity for the GOP to make the substantial changes we want. Whether or not they do so now depends on whether or not they are total idiots*10^4.394. On that matter, the jury is still out.

I agree. If it would have been as easy as going to the polling station, I would have voted for Obama. The GOP needed to pay a price and needed a change forced on them, that's the only Change I knew Obama would be good for.

[Space Patroller]

Giuliani is a realistic choice. I would support him.

Aside from being tough on crime. Giuliani is qute liberal. which leaves the GOP with the same blurred boundaries problem and he will be reduced to me-too'ing.

Also, his political cawardice is too well known. He wants it handed to him. His failure to get in early in the '08 priamry season, waiting until Florida, showed that, so he's not exactly a hot property

Also there is a damnmning sound bite from '93 that I heard on WCBS 889 AM, New York.

SCENE: the second debate. One or the other candidate is ahead by about 4 points. Obama ups and says "Mr. Gioliani, you said to 'watch out for Republican tricks' Wha did you mean by that?". If Guliani denies it, it is part of the next two weeks worth of Democratic campaign ads and he loses by 9-11 points. If he tries to explain it, the media all go in unison "Oh sure 'humma, humma, humma". He loses by 8 to 10 points.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Space Patroller

[gags]

I agree. If it would have been as easy as going to the polling station, I would have voted for Obama. The GOP needed to pay a price and needed a change forced on them, that's the only Change I knew Obama would be good for.

The problem is that we're all paying a pretty hefty price. I hope we're able to undue the things that will be imposed on us over the next four years under Obama.

[TheEgoist]

YOu know who a good choice would be? (Sorry if it has been said)

Condi Rice. She was one of the few good parts of the Bush administration. She has expressed liberal social views and while she hesitated to really express them under Bush, rightfully so, I think we might see a firmer stance on things like abortion with her. She certainly isn't a member of the religious right, and that is good.

Views on economics though? I don't know, does anyone?

[Zip]

I choose freedom.

[K-Mac]

She certainly isn't a member of the religious right, and that is good.

Her father is a minister, although I am not sure what her religious affiliations are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice

Edited March 26, 2009 by K-Mac