|
Post by twinder on Mar 1, 2011 19:55:47 GMT -5
Just about now seems as good a time as any to start a discussion about the potential 2012 candidates for office. Even the local election for County Commissioners might get interesting.
For the record, I'm not impressed with ANY of the potential candidates for POTUS from the Republicans. I include all of those who may or may not be running. Like Gingrich, Huckabee, Romney, et al. I'm still hoping to find a strong leader to emerge from the masses somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Mar 1, 2011 20:40:21 GMT -5
We could do a lot worse than Newt. He'll be announcing soon.
Obama is ripe for the picking by someone with specific, honest plans which will contrast greatly with what we have now.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 12, 2011 8:38:37 GMT -5
Obama no leader and would prefer "easier" job as president of China
March 11th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain
John Hinderaker at Powerline hits on something I’ve been saying for quite some time about the man in the White House:
Last night Col. Ralph Peters was on Bill O’Reilly’s show, talking about Libya. Peters thinks we should act on behalf of the rebels there, but he expressed skepticism that President Obama will ever do anything. "Obama loves the idea of being President," Peters said, "but he can’t make a decision."
I think there is a lot of truth to that, even in domestic policy, where Obama has passively deferred to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on all legislative matters. One can debate whether action is appropriate in Libya or not, but Peters is certainly right when it comes to foreign policy–it is a safe bet that Obama will do nothing, because doing something would require a decision.
Now it just so happens that I think we ought to stay out of Libya, so this is a stopped clock moment for me. I essentially agree with Obama’s non-decision.
However, to the larger point. I agree with Peters completely when he says “Obama loves the idea of President, but he can’t make a decision”. I might have said it a little differently. Obama loves the idea of being President and the trappings and perks. What he doesn’t like is the job.
I think that should be abundantly clear to anyone who has closely observed the man and taken a look at his background. I always remember the words of the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review who said that Obama loved the title of Editor of the Law Review, but he didn’t want to do the work. The managing editor said he rarely saw him except when it was to glad hand or take credit (and praise) for what was being done. Additionally, Obama never wrote a thing for the review during his tenure, something almost unheard of.
In all cases, his problem is a leadership problem – a familiar topic for regular readers here. He’s simply not a leader. He has no idea how to be a leader. But that doesn’t keep him from wanting leadership roles that offer him prestige, perks and pleasure derived from simply from being in the position.
The reason Obama can’t make a decision is he can’t reason like a leader must. He has no experience. And he doesn’t understand the decision making process as practiced by a leader. He’s never really had to make leadership decisions. So he simply tries to avoid making them. One way he does it is to ignore the problem. Another way he does this is to appoint commissions and panels concerning problems the country faces in order to defer the problem (and decision). He also like to defer to the “international community” on foreign policy or the Democratic leadership in the legislature on domestic things. Again, the avoidance of decision making.
And, in the end, he lets them make the decisions for him and then he jumps on the bandwagon with a speech full of rhetoric about how they (whichever party he is deferring to on whatever issue) have listened to him and decided on a course much like he recommended. Or something like that.
Even the Democrats are noticing how poor a leader he is. They’ve been hollering for weeks, some of them very vocally, that he needs to step up and show some leadership in the budget process. To this point he’s done much of nothing. Today he gave a press conference on energy because gas prices have increased. Essentially his line of argument, concerning domestic oil, is we’re doing fine and we shouldn’t worry.
And where has he decided to try to take a little leadership?
School bullying.
Umhmmm. That boiling, roiling top tier controversy that threatens to tear the world apart. On the turmoil in the Middle East, yeah, uh, not so much. France is doing just fine and besides, Hillary will be by to see you soon.
Instead of a leader, we’re stuck with this:
Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”
Amazing. "Easier". See Peters’ words above.
I say we cut him loose in 2012 and let him take the “hope and change” show to China to make his case. They’ll be bankrupt inside of 2 years.
~McQ
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Mar 21, 2011 19:45:55 GMT -5
Tim Pawlenty files paperwork for presidential bid.I'm hearing he has an unassailable record for fiscal responsibility in Minnesota. Might be a hard target for the Left so they'll go after his social views and insult him for his lack of "charisma." Obviously, a huge improvement over the current kabal. I see Sarah is on a foreign nation swing. Looks like she's shoring up weak areas.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Mar 21, 2011 20:06:42 GMT -5
I'm not too sure about either of these two either.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on Mar 22, 2011 2:41:27 GMT -5
Where can we find another Ronald Reagan?
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 22, 2011 6:40:11 GMT -5
At this point I like John Bolton and Herman Cain. I’m not sure about Bolton’s views on social matters, but I like his foreign policy credentials. I’ve admired Herman Cain since his God Father’s Pizza days. The better business shows liked to interview him and he has always been consistent in his free market views. He also has a fair amount of charisma and is articulate which helps.
It would be interesting to see Cain running against Obama. It’s hard to tell who would get the black vote, but I’m sure it would hurt Obama in that area.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 30, 2011 9:12:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Apr 2, 2011 8:41:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Apr 2, 2011 16:29:25 GMT -5
The truth hurts.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Apr 25, 2011 18:53:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Apr 25, 2011 20:42:30 GMT -5
I hope he makes it through the primaries and gets the GOP nomination. I think he could do a good job. I liked him in the last election before he bowed out.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Apr 26, 2011 7:14:35 GMT -5
In the past he’s been considered too libertarian to get enough popular votes; he also isn’t favored by the GOP establishment.
Lets hope the Tea Party movement has changed things enough for him to get nominated this time.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on Apr 26, 2011 12:24:38 GMT -5
You really think that Ron Paul would be a winning candidate? The man has a few good ideas and a lot of crazy ones. He's the right's equivalent of Lyndon LaRouche.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Apr 26, 2011 14:46:47 GMT -5
If Ron Paul does end up running against Obama, It would certainly give voters a chance to vote for either political extreme.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Apr 26, 2011 16:12:55 GMT -5
Sorry Doug, but of all of the candidates in the last election, ROn Paul was one who I felt would have made a significant impact on the country. For the better, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on Apr 26, 2011 23:31:36 GMT -5
Todd, a big part of Paul's problem is the Paulistas. They really do come off as smug and fairly loony. But his positions on some issues are pretty much guaranteed to lose him lots of votes among groups that would generally support his philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Apr 27, 2011 8:00:09 GMT -5
I’ve long doubted the electability of Ron Paul, or any Libertarian candidate, for reasons Doug mentions, but if he can get the nomination he’ll be running against Obama and unless the GOP or their candidate really screws up it should be a GOP landslide.
Obama’s popularity has reached the point where he has to look up to see the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Apr 28, 2011 8:47:51 GMT -5
Will Trump finally go away? By Thomas Sowell www.JewishWorldReview.com | The boomlet for Donald Trump as a Republican nominee for President of the United States ought to be a wake-up call for Republican candidates and Republican Party leaders alike. Why has Trump surged ahead of other Republican candidates and potential candidates in the polls? It is not likely that his resurrection of the issue of Barack Obama's birth certificate has aroused all this support. The birth certificate issue does more political damage to Obama's critics than to the president himself, because it enables the media to paint those critics as kooks. Nor are Donald Trump's political positions such as to create a stampede to his cause. Radio talk show host Mark Levin has rebroadcast Trump's varied and mutually contradictory statements on political issues and personalities over the years. It was a devastating revelation of Trump's "versatility of convictions," to use a phrase coined long ago by Thorstein Veblen. What then is Donald Trump's appeal— and why should it concern Republican leaders in general? What Trump has that so many other Republicans are so painfully lacking is the ability and the willingness to articulate his positions clearly, forcefully and in plain English. Too many Republicans talk like the actor of whom a critic once said, "he played the king like he was afraid that someone else was going to play the ace." What electrified so many Republicans about Sarah Palin in the 2008 election campaign was that she was such a contrast to the usual mealy-mouth talk that was more common among other Republican candidates, including Senator John McCain. Whether you agreed or disagreed with her position on the issues, you didn't have to wave your hand in front of her eyes to see if she was awake. Donald Trump is dangerous in at least two senses. If, by some tragic miracle, he should become the Republicans' candidate for president in 2012, that would be the closest thing to an iron-clad guarantee of a second term in the White House for Barack Obama. That would be a huge setback for the Republicans— and, far more important— a historic catastrophe for this country. What seems more likely is that Donald Trump as a candidate for the Republican nomination would use his superior articulation skills— not to mention brash irresponsibility— to trash all the other Republican candidates for that nomination, leaving them damaged goods in the eyes of the public, and therefore less able to gather the votes needed to prevent the reelection of Obama. Why Republicans seem not to understand the crucial importance of putting the same time and attention into articulating their positions as the Democrats do is one of the enduring mysteries of American politics. It was obvious that the Democrats coordinated their talking points and catch-phrases— "social justice," "tax cuts for the rich," etc.— even before the overheard and recorded statements of Senator Chuck Schumer about Democrats' plans to repeatedly use the word "extreme" to characterize Republicans. But how many Republican catch-phrases can you remember? Republican rhetoric tends to range from low key to no key. Nor is there much evidence that Republicans have asked themselves how the left-wing of the Democratic Party gained such ascendancy in recent years, in a country where millions more people identify themselves as conservative than identify themselves as liberals. In short, there is little or no evidence that most Republicans see any need to fundamentally change their approach to the public. But if they think that they can rely on Obama's declining popularity to win the 2012 election, they may be in for a rude shock. Worse yet, the whole future of this country and of western civilization will be in jeopardy, in a world where the likes of Iran and North Korea become nuclear powers, while we engage in empty talk at the U.N. Barack Obama's declining support in public opinion polls make some conservatives feel that his reelection hopes are doomed. But Donald Trump can be Barack Obama's secret weapon in his fight to remain in the White House. The Donald can be his Trump card.
|
|
|
Post by twinder on Apr 28, 2011 11:32:02 GMT -5
I usually agree with the writer but this is plain horse-shit.
Trump is gaining in popularity simply because he is not a politician. I think people in general are just sick of politicians.
Trump says what's on his mind and doens't seem to beat around the bush about things. He means what he says and says what he means.
I'm not saying I think he would make a good president or that i would even vote for him. But, I can tell you that he could give anyone a run for their money. Right now he's polling #1 or #2 of all the potential candidates on the GOP side. What's that tell you?
|
|