Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Your Presidential hopefuls for 2012

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Space Patroller wrote:

What Romney has to do is get media savvy and be more assertive.

I fixed the misspelling of Romney's name in the above quote. I will do the same for everyone so please don’t say I ruined your quote, or committed some petty fraud.

Though Objectivists are leery of him, he is probably the “easiest elected,” even with the albatross of Romneycare around his neck. I do NOT think he is a RINO. I could vote for him.

Paul Ryan would be my favorite if he were running. He said he would not run because his kids are too young. They may be 7, 8, and 9 now but I am not sure. He was a featured speaker at a ceremony (Ayn Rand’s grave?) when a statue was unveiled. And Rand Paul? The name says it all. A Paul Ryan President and Rand Paul Vice President would be my perfect combination. I hope Paul changes his mind.

I think the decision to NOT vote is nihilistic. It is not what Ayn Rand would do. She campaigned for several people. And she would be fired up, mad a hell, and not going to take it anymore, if she were still alive. She would be speaking to her biggest fan, Paul Ryan frequently.

Is there anyone else? This is to inform everyone that I subscribe and donate to TIA Daily. I have subscribed since its inception and I highly recommend TIA Daily. Robert Tracinski’s articles are reprinted in spots like Realclearpolitics but I get them first and articles like the Washington Post are excerpted with permission. Subscribers have been given the OK to reprint portions.

This is a bit long but it is “of a piece” and a shorter excerpt would not convey its full meaning.

So if not Paul Ryan or Rand Paul who? Ron Paul? I like Ron but wonder about his elect-ability. Here is another choice.

Peter Taylor

TIA Daily • April 25, 2011 by Robert Tracinski

6. The Big 2012 Election Decision

I have so far resisted covering the contest for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. I am waiting for the serious candidates to get into the race—and for the publicity-seeking vanity candidates, like Donald Trump and Mitt Romney, to fade.

(Yes, that was an unfair dig against Romney. But does he really think he can win the nomination when his signature accomplishment, as governor of Massachusetts, was to pass a precursor to ObamaCare?)

I think Obama is in real trouble (and RCP's Sean Trende presents a convincing case). The only thing that can save him is if the Republicans nominate a candidate with some glaring weakness—which many of them have. In particular, I don't think we need a flashy, exciting, but controversial celebrity candidate. I think we need someone serous and sober, an anti-Obama.

That is why the most important decision of the 2012 election will be made this week, when Indiana's legislative session ends and Governor Mitch Daniels decides whether or not to run.

Daniels is a serious, thoughtful candidate with a low-key demeanor—a man of substance over style. He has established excellent small-government credentials in Indiana, he is the one who has described government debt as the "red menace," he has championed Ryan-style entitlement reform, and he famously proposed a "truce" between religious conservatives and pro-free-marketers.

I have become convinced that Daniels is the man we need—if he will agree to run. The article below describes what is at stake in his decision.

"Mitch Daniels Sounds Fiscal Alarm, but Indiana Republican Hesitant to Run in 2012," Dan Balz, Washington Post, April 24

Link to comment
Share on other sites

same here, CapitalistSwine. I think Johnson is more electable, more appealing to your average person, etc. but that Ron Paul is more principled, consistent, and would be less willing to compromise when dismantling the welfare/warfare state. I think Johnson might really have a chance to win, if Paul wasn't in the race. I think Paul has at least as good a chance as Johnson in getting the nomination (due to his huge backing from the last election, and being the Father of the Tea Party). Both of them, running against each other? I think each will be the other's spoiler. Here's hoping one of them drops out soon (though I kind of hope its Johnson).

Other than them, at this point, the Republicans have nothing to offer. I'll vote for whoever they pick (as long as it isn't Palin, pretty much) just to get Obama out, but I certainly wouldn't like it. I'd be skipping to the voting both to vote for Paul or Johnson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideally, I am hoping for Ron Paul/Gary Johnson combined ticket or the other way around.

That sounds fine by me. I know Paul's stance on Iran is not good, but we have more important matters at hand. We need a president in power that will stop trying to further destroy our economy. When the bond bubble bursts, it would be good to have someone in charge who knows how to undo the damage of the last several decades.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of them, running against each other? I think each will be the other's spoiler. Here's hoping one of them drops out soon (though I kind of hope its Johnson).

Other than them, at this point, the Republicans have nothing to offer. I'll vote for whoever they pick (as long as it isn't Palin, pretty much) just to get Obama out, but I certainly wouldn't like it. I'd be skipping to the voting both to vote for Paul or Johnson.

I certainly do feel that Ron Paul has a notably better chance if both of them are on their own and not running together. As you said, he has a large grassroots backing from the last election and it's follow-up that are ready to go full throttle this time around. Secondly, Gary Johnson is pro-choice, among one or two other positions that tend to unsettle the GOP-base which he would need strong support from to win. While he has passed legislation against late-term abortions, and favors civil unions instead of full blown gay marriage, and these nuances certainly help him in this respect, Ron Paul is more appealing in this sense. Obama's failings and other developments have also made Ron Paul out to be much more credible this time around in his positions, where in 2008 there were numerous attempts by the media and even the guy administering the first Republican general debate to make him out as a complete loon. He was marginalized and he wasn't even invited to the 2nd debate, he is getting everything ready and filled out ahead of time this time to ensure this does not occur again.

As far as Ron Paul's foreign policy, re: Brian, I most certainly do have some strong gripes with some of his views regarding foreign policy, but I will also admit that in many respects with the military he would get us on the right track in areas Obama had promised to do so and, to no one's surprise, fell through on. We also know that he is as serious as any candidate can be about reducing the debt, getting our financial house in order, and minimizing the economic fallout in the future as much as possible given what power would be available to either of them as President.

o

This whole Gary Johnson, Ron Paul on seperate tickets thing is just another round of the Libertarian's shooting themselves in the foot and being their own worst enemy once again. If they were together they could nullify to a large extent the parts of either of them that the GOP, Independents, and very disillusioned liberals would find problems with. Ron Paul is more appealing to the GOP, Johnson could, would, and if he continues, undoubtedly will capture a large percentage of the independent vote, which I think is where he is strongest. The religious and foreign policy parts Johnson nulls out, the more liberal positions on civil and social issues (marriage/abortion/etc.) of his would be lessened by Ron Paul being on the same ticket.

I have a friend that recently wrote a blog posting about this very issue and compared them:

http://bonniekristian.com/paul-vs-johnson-or-we-actually-have-two-palatable-options/

Other than them, at this point, the Republicans have nothing to offer. I'll vote for whoever they pick (as long as it isn't Palin, pretty much) just to get Obama out, but I certainly wouldn't like it. I'd be skipping to the voting both to vote for Paul or Johnson.

I am in the exact same position. If it came down to it, and the candidate wasn't just plain awful I would vote them to make sure Obama gets out, but it really is amazing how a country with so many great people as ours has so little to offer in decent candidates. Hell, half of them are the GOP, Republican-authoritarian status-quo nutjobs from the last election. It's embarrassing, pathetic, and depressing. I will put as much weight as I can behind Paul this time around unless some magic candidate comes out of nowhere because he seems to be the only non-status quo Republican candidate that actually has a chance at getting a nomination, even if it is slimmer than I would prefer its the best chance he will get. If Obama wins again, then if nothing else I can hope for a potential Gary Johnson and quite possibly even a Rand Paul run in 2016, and I think Rand Paul could definitely make it to Presidency in 2016 depending on the candidates and events prior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Gary Johnson: Why I'm Running for President By JAY NEWTON-SMALL Jay Newton-small – Fri Apr 22, 11:20 am ET

Former two-term New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is running for president. In a 25-minute speech, Johnson spent nearly as much time acknowledging the obstacles to his candidacy as he did his strengths. Yes, he conceded, he's against the war in Iraq and U.S. engagement in Libya. He'd like to balance the budget tomorrow by slashing 43% off of all federal spending, including the Pentagon. He'd turn both Medicare and Medicaid into block grants to the states. He's pro-immigration and his proud declaration that he'd love to legalize marijuana gave a passing class of sixth-graders the giggles.

Jay Newton asked him:

You don't attend church and you've said in the past that Jesus is a "historical figure." How do you plan on appealing to social conservatives?

Gary Johnson replied:

Well, actually, I believe in God… And at a minimum Jesus was a great historical figure - at minimum at great role model - at minimum.

He sounds like a good guy but may be viewed as a good “head”ed heathen by his opponents. I have no idea how he will be viewed by Republicans in general but he will be heckled by people like Huchabee with a pulpit. He sounds like the real deal and not a “politician.” I would vote for him if a couple of other people don’t win the primaries. Still the punches he is beginning the fight with are good except for pot smoking (jab) and Jesus was not a deity (left hook) and they leave him open to a barrage of counter punches over the missed left hook,from the right.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of now Trump and Paul are at the top of my list.

You might as well vote for Obama then. (Referring to mentioning Trump). Check the Trump thread, I posted a bunch of info in there. He is the least Republican of them all.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...