Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 16803
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 9:26 am
 


Filibuster Cartoons
Title: The job no Republican wants (click to view)
Date: May 10, 2011
Amid exceedingly little fanfare, or even media attention, the Republican Party quietly held its first presidential primary debate last Thursday, officially kicking off the race to wrestle the White House from President Obama next year. Though there were a few memorable moments and a couple of witty lines, the event was largely noteworthy only as a reminder of how pathetically slim the declared GOP candidate roster is at the moment. Of the five who took to the stage, only former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty could claim the mantle of being a "real" candidate, in the sense of being at least somewhat well-known and holding a relatively mainstream Republican philosophy. The remaining four began with Ron Paul and only got more fringey from there, which should give you some indication of why most networks weren't exactly scrambling to reschedule their Osama death coverage.

For reasons I still don't entirely understand, the 2012 Republican primary has been an excruciatingly protracted dance of seven veils. While there the race has a large number of high profile "presumed" candidates, including (in the order they appear in my comic) New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, and Mike Huckabee, all have yet to come out of the proverbial campaign closet and formally declare their intentions to run. This has led to a bizarre paradox whereby the press can constantly complain that there are no "serious" Republicans running for president, yet simultaneously give endless excited coverage to the theoretical campaigns of the dozen or so GOP bigwigs who still officially aren't.

Part of the problem seems to be America's campaign finance regime, which only imposes its regulations and spending limits once a candidate completes his paperwork to formally run for office. This creates an incentive to keep one's campaign stuck in contemplative limbo world for as long as possible, in which it's legally a little bit easier to raise and spend money promoting yourself, so long as it's only for "exploratory" purposes (whatever that means). If your popularity tanks, it's also far less damaging to the ol' ego to merely abandon an exploratory committee, rather than shamefully withdraw a full-fledged presidential campaign, and considering the entirely uncertain mood of the Republican base at the moment, many top GOP contenders apparently don't want to risk their pride until it's entirely apparent they have a serious chance of avoiding humiliation in the polls.

Other prospective candidates have even more particular strategic concerns. Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, for instance, are clearly the candidates with the most to lose by running for president, at least from a strictly financial perspective. Neither of them has ever been particularly rich, yet at the moment both are enjoying great wealth and career stability, as a result of their newfound media careers as authors and FOX pundits. Running for president would require a resignation from this pleasant lifestyle, so both Huck and Sarah are predictably taking an exceedingly long time to weigh their options, as their pollsters and bean counters no doubt work furiously in the background.

Overall, the GOP presidential contenders can be organized into three tiers, which I present here, with links to official campaign sites, for handy reference:

1. Officially running (attended debate, and have exploratory committee): Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Gary Johnson, Herman Cain

2. Officially "considering" running (have exploratory committee, but did not attend debate and have been campaigning less overtly): Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich

3. Considered to be a "likely" candidate by the media (have either mused openly about running, or poll well among the party faithful, but have no committees or websites): Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Chris Christie, Haley Barbour, John Huntsman.

The biggest fear of the conservative establishment is that none of the tier three people ever migrate to tier one — since the former seems to be where most of the big, interesting, popular names are residing — and the party gets stuck with a candidate who is either way too unknown, or too fringey, to pose a serious threat to Barack Obama.

Partisanship aside, who do you think the Republicans would be wisest to nominate? I'm personally a bit conflicted. On the one hand, since I expect President Obama to win reelection fairly easily, a case could be made that nominating the most Obama-like candidate — which is to say, moderate in temperament and ideology — would be wise, which would push Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Daniels to the front. On the other hand, an equally strong case could be made that in a Republican "off year" the party has less to lose by making a strategically desperate gamble, and nominating someone with the ability to mobilize right-wingers to the ballot booths in record numbers. That would then favor someone like Trump, Bachmann, Ron Paul, or even Herman Cain. After all, the logic goes, the Republicans can only win in 2012 if they can somehow tap into some inactive base who ordinarily wouldn't vote, just as Obama did with youths and minorities in 2008. "Angry conservative white guys" have certainly been more active than usual via the Tea Party as of late, so maybe a Tea Party candidate is the only strategically sensible option at this point — though such a conclusion is obviously quite troubling to any conservative who views the Tea Party movement with some fear and skepticism.

But I've never been much at predictions. I want to hear what you think!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11539
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 9:40 am
 


I say Ron Paul.

For weakening the conservative social approach by 'giving the states the freedom to make decisions'. Surely we'd see a lot more states with legal gay marriage and lax drug laws that can't be twisted around by the federal government.

That's about all i can cheer for with these guys. They are all so boring.

I also think the market for 'Angry Conservative White Guy' was tapped a long time ago.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2681
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 11:18 am
 


The Repubs could really toss a wrench in the system if they run Herman Cain. A southern black conservative vs a big city black liberal...decisions decisions...


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 New York Rangers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8179
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 11:46 am
 


How about this as a ticket:

For President Donald Trump
VEEP Sara PAlin


That would make a good Friday the 13th Movie; it would scare the hell out of me.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 12:31 pm
 


CommanderSock wrote:
The Repubs could really toss a wrench in the system if they run Herman Cain. A southern black conservative vs a big city black liberal...decisions decisions...


Yep, the conservatives are swinging to Cain. I don't know much about him to say anythying myself, but seems a lot of folks are infatuated with him.

Palin can still run and given GOP precedent she'd have a right to lay claim to the Good Old Boys' support...but then the Good Old Boys have been actively subverting her so maybe that would cause a GOP civil war. That might be fun, too.

Regardless of who runs on the GOP side it is Obama's election to lose. Right now he's a shoo-in and I'd bet on him if it were to come up right now.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2681
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 12:49 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
CommanderSock wrote:
The Repubs could really toss a wrench in the system if they run Herman Cain. A southern black conservative vs a big city black liberal...decisions decisions...


Yep, the conservatives are swinging to Cain. I don't know much about him to say anythying myself, but seems a lot of folks are infatuated with him.

Palin can still run and given GOP precedent she'd have a right to lay claim to the Good Old Boys' support...but then the Good Old Boys have been actively subverting her so maybe that would cause a GOP civil war. That might be fun, too.

Regardless of who runs on the GOP side it is Obama's election to lose. Right now he's a shoo-in and I'd bet on him if it were to come up right now.


If the economy is in the tank and unemployment still high, a blow up doll will win vs Obama. If things get better then he'll have his incumbency advantage.

For Cain, I do hear he did very well in the debates. I watched it and I thought Ron Paul was the man. Cain was all sound-byte.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5472
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 1:10 pm
 


Potentially serious candidates:

Mitt Romney
Ron Paul
Mitch Daniels
John Huntsman
Tim Pawlenty
Rudy Giuliani

Strictly comic relief:

Sarah Palin
Newt Gingrich
Rick Santorum
Herman Cain
Donald Trump

I still wouldn't vote for a single one of them. Even the serious ones will have to become lackeys to the TeaBircher/Dixie base, and the comic relief ones are so nightmarish to conceive of that I don't even want to talk about it.

Barring a major reversal of fortunes by late October of 2012, this election is Obama's to lose, and thank God for that. Add in the growing evidence of complete economic and social disaster in almost all the states that voted in TeaBircher governors in 2010 and Obama's road to a second term should most likely become even easier.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 1:36 pm
 


Thanos wrote:
I still wouldn't vote for a single one of them.


I'm comforted by the certain knowledge that none of them will lose any sleep over that.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5472
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 2:09 pm
 


If you GrOPers don't like the responses you get from Canadians why do you keep posting this stuff on a Canadian discussion forum? :?


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 643
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 3:25 pm
 


I like Gary Johnson, and think he would probably stand the greatest chance of actually winning were he to make it past the primary and become the official nominee. Hell, I would strongly consider voting for him over Obama, which should tell you something about his likability and reach-across-the-aisle cred. (I still very much like Obama.) Granted, that's mostly because Johnson is Ron Paul without the off-putting aura of complete lunacy, and appeals to me by being very socially liberal--basically a libertarian back when the libertarians actually cared about victimless crimes and stuff rather than just turning into the Tea Party--but, you know, still.

Anyway, that's my pick, but being described by JJ as more fringe than Ron Paul and not even being included on either of Thanos' lists at all despite being one of the only five candidates to actually announce for real and be in the debate... ouch. :( Admittedly, I guess he is kind of a long shot, as his social platform would probably be a bit hard for the base to swallow, so him in the general election is unlikely even though he could really do well there.... Actually, that's probably the GOP's biggest problem right now and the biggest reason Obama is probably going to get reelected; their base has moved far enough to the right that they don't have anyone who can win the primary and the general.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 3:33 pm
 


Thanos wrote:
If you GrOPers don't like the responses you get from Canadians why do you keep posting this stuff on a Canadian discussion forum? :?


Thanos, I'm simply responding to the absurd notion that you'd EVER vote for a Republican. :wink:


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 New York Rangers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8179
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 3:43 pm
 


Thanos wrote:
Potentially serious candidates:

Mitt Romney
Ron Paul
Mitch Daniels
John Huntsman
Tim Pawlenty
Rudy Giuliani

Strictly comic relief:

Sarah Palin
Newt Gingrich
Rick Santorum
Herman Cain
Donald Trump

I still wouldn't vote for a single one of them. Even the serious ones will have to become lackeys to the TeaBircher/Dixie base, and the comic relief ones are so nightmarish to conceive of that I don't even want to talk about it.

Barring a major reversal of fortunes by late October of 2012, this election is Obama's to lose, and thank God for that. Add in the growing evidence of complete economic and social disaster in almost all the states that voted in TeaBircher governors in 2010 and Obama's road to a second term should most likely become even easier.


Well we like horror stories and Friday the 13th is coming up so comic relief types may provide some amusement. I am just so tired of voting for the least worst candidate.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5472
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 3:48 pm
 


That assumption by Bart is certainly in error. I would have happily voted for Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush The Elder. Probably Dole too in recognition of his experience and wartime service. And Ford too because Carter was just a prop for a bunch of ridiculous 1960's leftist boomers. But I most likely would have gone all anti-hippy reactionary (really, there's zero on any level to like at all about Al Gore) also voted at least once for both Nixon (very good social program credentials for a Republican and he promised to get out of Vietnam ASAP too) and Bush Jr, but ended up feeling really bad about it later on after all the evidence of their malice (Nixon) and incompetence (Dubya) came to light. Would also have gone with the McCain of 2000, but certainly not with the one from 2008, especially not after the Palin selection for VP.

But this current crop? Not a chance. I actually hope that they're dumb enough to put a Trump/Palin ticket together just so President Obama ends up winning by more.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 3:54 pm
 


I stand corrected. [B-o]


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6972
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 4:05 pm
 


Thanos wrote:
..voted at least once for both Nixon (very good social program credentials for a Republican and he promised to get out of Vietnam ASAP too).

:D Nixon ran in '68 on a platform of ending war in Vietnam, spent four years doing nothing but intensifying the war, then ran on the same lie in '72...and it worked both times!

Thanos wrote:
But this current crop? Not a chance. I actually hope that they're dumb enough to put a Trump/Palin ticket together just so President Obama ends up winning by more.

Don't you get the sense that traditional Republicans have recognized the cancer that the Tea Baggers have brought to their party? I do. I feel as though they've reached the low-water mark and I fully expect the GOP to field a rational, moderate alternative to Obama in 2012. They can't risk being on the wrong end of an '84-style landslide trouncing, which is what they'll get with Trump or Palin anywhere near the ticket.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.