Republican Presidential Primaries, Who are the best candidates? Options

[Research Monkey]

The most surprising thing to happen in today's primaries? Dennis Kucinich lost. And it wasn't even close.

[debator]

not really surprising. he kinda got redistricted out of his former constituency, same way david dreier did in la.

[debator]

just found out the rep. who beat him will go against joe the plumber in the general election. wtf.

[Higginbotham]

just found out the rep. who beat him will go against joe the plumber in the general election. wtf.

And Kaptur will slaughter him easily.

Obama wins in a landslide. Or as close as we can get to a landslide in a country that is shamefully ignorant, and infested with 40% right wing crazies. Between Romney's nomination and his defeat we're going to see an insane amount of negative advertising from superPACs. I'd love to see that spur a movement towards adopting a Constitutional amendment outlawing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" and instituting public financing of campaigns. Not gonna happen though...

I would argue that Obama is the best president since FDR, and unless something dramatic happens, I'm pretty sure history will agree with me. Preventing a depression, resisting the self-destructive austerity hysteria that is destroying Europe, saving the auto industry, best environmental prez yet (he should do a lot more here), spectacular foreign policy achievements (though the rise of the drones is disturbing), best gay rights prez ever (hope he endorses gay marriage ASAP), health care reform (hope it's a step towards single payer), champion of women's rights.

Considering the fact that he has had to face a disloyal opposition more interested in destroying his presidency than in serving their country, it's amazing he's achieved so many worthwhile goals. I'm also extremely relieved to see that he has finally started playing hardball with Republicans. For too long, he gave them far too much credit as reasonable people that could be worked with.

[JSK]

It's not going to happen, but I would think it hilarious if Gingrich won the nomination, and then Obama campaigned on a "family values" platform!

[Research Monkey]

As much as I'd probably vote an identical ballot with you, I've gotta say...

Obama wins in a landslide. Or as close as we can get to a landslide in a country that is shamefully ignorant, and infested with 40% right wing crazies.

The problem is that, for an easy example, our very own Mr. Bishop is a likely Romney voter, but not someone I really would call a "right-wing crazy." I know, and am related by blood to plenty of legitimate right-wing crazies, but I don't think that's a fair categorization of the average Republican voter.

I'd love to see that spur a movement towards adopting a Constitutional amendment outlawing the doctrine of "corporate personhood" and instituting public financing of campaigns. Not gonna happen though...

I'm curious how concrete this idea of "corporate personhood" is in the eyes of SCOTUS. The next few years of cases will hopefully tell us a lot more about how exactly that is all viewed. Technically speaking, corporations are NOT granted all Constitutional protections like individuals are. For example, corporations are NOT given fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination, and are required to disclose all information subpoenaed by the courts. So while I think they are given some latitude insofar as the idea that they could have free speech rights as an aggregation of individuals, I don't think that aggregation has given them other rights that can't really be aggregated.

I would argue that Obama is the best president since FDR, and unless something dramatic happens, I'm pretty sure history will agree with me. Preventing a depression, resisting the self-destructive austerity hysteria that is destroying Europe, saving the auto industry, best environmental prez yet (he should do a lot more here), spectacular foreign policy achievements (though the rise of the drones is disturbing), best gay rights prez ever (hope he endorses gay marriage ASAP), health care reform (hope it's a step towards single payer), champion of women's rights.

Continuing a war, starting another, propping up an anemic and lethargic Detroit auto industry and its overpaid blue-collar workforce at the expense of Silicon Valley startups and innovation-based jobs, not actually facing the real issues that Europe faces debt-wise, only looks so good on environmental issues because of the things he scaled back from Bush II, still a conservative Christian who doesn't believe in gay marriage, health care reform keeps the worst of both single payer and free market, and women already had rights.

Meh.

Considering the fact that he has had to face a disloyal opposition more interested in destroying his presidency than in serving their country, it's amazing he's achieved so many worthwhile goals. I'm also extremely relieved to see that he has finally started playing hardball with Republicans. For too long, he gave them far too much credit as reasonable people that could be worked with.

This is true.

[Widget!]

It's not going to happen, but I would think it hilarious if Gingrich won the nomination, and then Obama campaigned on a "family values" platform!

"smurf it, guys, no one takes any of this seriously anymore; how Dadaist can our campaign be?"

[Crow]

Interestingly, Gingrich might be closer to the military/foreign policy position of several people on this board than, say, Obama (albeit by a different set of reasoning).

Also: Mississippi, Alabama, Hawaii, & American Samoa are all up.

This post has been edited by Crow: Mar 14 2012, 12:49 AM

[AK_WDB]

I go back and forth on military and foreign policy. Someone - I think RM - said a few days ago that it's the issue on which he's the most "liberal", and in general, I feel the same way. I've never supported the war in Iraq. I don't think Israel has universal moral superiority over Palestine. I don't think the American soldier can do no wrong. I don't like the jingoistic "weak on terrorism" label Republicans often throw at Democrats. And while I think going into Afghanistan was fully justified after 9/11, I, like Gingrich and so many other Americans, have increasing qualms about whether the American mission there is achievable, or whether we have a clear mission at all.

On the other hand, I absolutely support maintaining a strong military. Look at World War II, for Christ's sake. That didn't happen in some backwards prehistoric era of humanity; one of my grandfathers fought in it, and I imagine many of you can say the same. There's no reason to believe the world is nicer today than in the 1940s. There's no reason not to believe that there are people like Hitler and the Nazis out there today, that they could cause mayhem on a scale far beyond 9/11 and even beyond WWII if they gained control of a national government, and that one of the main things holding them back is the knowledge that we have the ability to wipe them off the face of the Earth. Sure, you say, we have the UN and NATO to keep channels of communication open between governments, but U.S. military strength - and the knowledge that we're willing to use it - backs up those organizations.

Those are just a few musings; I just don't understand these issues for the most part. What opinions I have on Iraq and Afghanistan are based on my perceptions, and I know I perceive only a small part of the picture. The dynamics of human behavior involved here are far more complex than those involved in economic issues, and particularly as someone who's never studied international relations in depth, I try not to take strong positions on specific military/foreign policy questions.

[Research Monkey]

I go back and forth on military and foreign policy. Someone - I think RM - said a few days ago that it's the issue on which he's the most "liberal", and in general, I feel the same way. I've never supported the war in Iraq. I don't think Israel has universal moral superiority over Palestine. I don't think the American soldier can do no wrong. I don't like the jingoistic "weak on terrorism" label Republicans often throw at Democrats. And while I think going into Afghanistan was fully justified after 9/11, I, like Gingrich and so many other Americans, have increasing qualms about whether the American mission there is achievable, or whether we have a clear mission at all.

On the other hand, I absolutely support maintaining a strong military. Look at World War II, for Christ's sake. That didn't happen in some backwards prehistoric era of humanity; one of my grandfathers fought in it, and I imagine many of you can say the same. There's no reason to believe the world is nicer today than in the 1940s. There's no reason not to believe that there are people like Hitler and the Nazis out there today, that they could cause mayhem on a scale far beyond 9/11 and even beyond WWII if they gained control of a national government, and that one of the main things holding them back is the knowledge that we have the ability to wipe them off the face of the Earth. Sure, you say, we have the UN and NATO to keep channels of communication open between governments, but U.S. military strength - and the knowledge that we're willing to use it - backs up those organizations.

Those are just a few musings; I just don't understand these issues for the most part. What opinions I have on Iraq and Afghanistan are based on my perceptions, and I know I perceive only a small part of the picture. The dynamics of human behavior involved here are far more complex than those involved in economic issues, and particularly as someone who's never studied international relations in depth, I try not to take strong positions on specific military/foreign policy questions.

While I think the same thing in theory, I assume that I just have a different understanding of what constitutes a strong military. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times consecutively. Where do we stop and say "yeah, I guess that's overkill."

I think the military industrial complex is like any other entitlement program and while it's easy to spend more, increase benefits, involve ourselves in more wars, it's much harder to emphasize restraint and fiscal prudence. What if before we launched every Tomahawk cruise missile, the officer giving the order had to explain to an oversight body why they believed firing that missile was worth the nearly $600,000 it costs to build it. Does the American public really believe that $600,000 of our tax dollars was worth it?

[Research Monkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE...8c7FAAAAAAAASAA

[AK_WDB]

Those from Waukesha: I'm proud of your state and especially your county.

[Autumn Comet]

Those from Waukesha: I'm proud of your state and especially your county.

Speaking of this, any thoughts on how what Romney pulled is going to affect the primaries? I feel like it wouldn't matter since his competition would probably still sink faster than he would.

[debator]

it's locked up for romney. which guess what, doesn't matter, because obama will route him in the ge. if they'd fielded a better candidate he'd have a chance, but none of the serious candidates could ever win against a decent incumbent (jon huntsman should be whipping his political advisers).

[Research Monkey]

Huntsman would never have drawn enough excitement to unseat an incumbent either. He looks good on paper, but he's not exciting enough to win a campaign in the age of mass media.

On a similar note, Romney will never drawn enough excitement to unseat an incumbent. He's not exciting enough to win a campaign in the age of mass media.

[AK_WDB]

On a similar note, Romney will never drawn enough excitement to unseat an incumbent. He's not exciting enough to win a campaign in the age of mass media.

For better or for worse, I suspect you are right.

[debator]

romney is the "i guess if we have to" candidate. i don't think that candidate has ever won a ge.

[Autumn Comet]

Santorum is out. I guess this makes it Obama v. Romney.

I want a rap battle. >:(

[Research Monkey]

There's not even anything worth paying attention to anymore.