Thread: GOP Nominee for 2012?

I have voted for Sanford: who represents 2 qualities that I like

1. He is fiscally prudent
2. He is a Social Moderate (as per wiki)

But why so few names? I would like to see, for e.g., people like Charlie Crist or even Jeb Bush.

I think the Republican party needs to do some soul searching to find a new direction...

why not an "none of the above" option? Noone saw Obama coming 2008, so I hold it very well possible that the next GOP candidate might be one that nobody suspects now. I would not be surprised if the reps now see a urge to "reinvent" themselve and try to find some fresh faces.

Originally Posted by antimony

But why so few names? I would like to see, for e.g., people like Charlie Crist or even Jeb Bush.

I'll add them - I'm not too attuned to all the potential candidates out there.

I still like Romney, I still like Palin, but Romney couldn't close against McCain, and Palin, for whatever the reason, inspires true hatred in people. While I wouldn't personally mind another term in the future of complete whackjob hatred, I'd prefer it didn't come from my allies.

So I think a clean slate should be the way.

One thing I'd like to see is a new plank added to the party line of term limits.

-dale

No Sarah Palin, no Romney, and no Huckabee. They should amend the Constitution and let Arnold run. Well that's not going to happen, but if the GOP is going to remain viable they need a fresh leader who is smart and can bridge the partisan divide.

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

...Noone saw Obama coming 2008...

Erm, huh? Obama's star was on the rise since the DNC in 2004. People were talking about him running in '08 before the '04 elections were over.

Was re really considered a serious candidate? As far as I remember the coverage he was not even conisdered one during the first weeks and month of the primaries..basicly none except Hillary was. At the beginning it was not described as a process where the democrats chose their candidate but where Hillary meets and maybe choose her running mate.

But since I am American much of the reports I watch/read are German based, therefor I have a different, less "inside" view.

I never thought Obama would trump Hillary!

I think Arnold is a great nominee for GOP. The Constitution will have to be changed.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

They should amend the Constitution and let Arnold run.

I am not so sure it will not be amended.

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

Was re really considered a serious candidate? As far as I remember the coverage he was not even conisdered one during the first weeks and month of the primaries..basicly none except Hillary was. At the beginning it was not described as a process where the democrats chose their candidate but where Hillary meets and maybe choose her running mate.

But since I am American much of the reports I watch/read are German based, therefor I have a different, less "inside" view.

He was definitely not the front runner, but it was pretty much a race between him and Hillary from the beginning. I think some people were surprised that he beat Hillary, but I think that was more surprise that anyone was able to beat the Clinton political machine, rather than surprise that Obama specifically could do it.

edit: My attention to the the election was off and on, but that was my perception. It is possible that my memory screwed things up.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

No Sarah Palin, no Romney, and no Huckabee. They should amend the Constitution and let Arnold run. Well that's not going to happen, but if the GOP is going to remain viable they need a fresh leader who is smart and can bridge the partisan divide.

Assuming that this is a serious point, why only Arnold? I am sure the GOP has plenty of stars who can run for office in 2012, but they do need to get their bearings right first

I think if they make social consegvatism their main focus they would have a tough fight on many emotional issues

Fiscal conservatism (low taxes, small amount of responsible regulation, low spending, balaned budget) and national security issues (strong military), alongwith an understanding of how to handle foreign affairs (hint: Teddy Roosevelt) will allow them to pull independents, whose support is crucial and also many democrats

Originally Posted by antimony

Assuming that this is a serious point, why only Arnold? I am sure the GOP has plenty of stars who can run for office in 2012, but they do need to get their bearings right first

I think if they make social consegvatism their main focus they would have a tough fight on many emotional issues

Fiscal conservatism (low taxes, small amount of responsible regulation, low spending, balaned budget) and national security issues (strong military), alongwith an understanding of how to handle foreign affairs (hint: Teddy Roosevelt) will allow them to pull independents, whose support is crucial and also many democrats

Well it doesn't have to be just Arnold, it could be anyone who jettisons most of the social conservative rhetoric. Why is abortion the only "litmus test" for the Republican nominee? Jefferey Hart, one of the founders of the conservative movement and (until recently) a senior editor at National Review wrote this:

In its embrace of the religious right under George W. Bush, the Republican Party became the stupid party. And committing suicide along with it has been the conservative movement. The party united around god, guns and gays is finished.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...tupid-party/1/

College-educated whites and upper income classes used to vote for the Republicans. They now voted for Obama. Despite all the rhetoric about Obama's "socialism" and redistribution, more rich people voted for him than McCain. So the Dems have become the party of the poor, and the rich, and the upper middle class, the college educated, and all minority groups. That leaves the Republicans with lower middle class, uneducated white guys. They need to expand that base or be forever in the minority.

I doubt that Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin have a hope in hades of getting the nomination.

The US media would crucify them.

My personal preference would be Condi Rice.

John.

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Well it doesn't have to be just Arnold, it could be anyone who jettisons most of the social conservative rhetoric. Why is abortion the only "litmus test" for the Republican nominee? Jefferey Hart, one of the founders of the conservative movement and (until recently) a senior editor at National Review wrote this:



http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...tupid-party/1/

College-educated whites and upper income classes used to vote for the Republicans. They now voted for Obama. Despite all the rhetoric about Obama's "socialism" and redistribution, more rich people voted for him than McCain. So the Dems have become the party of the poor, and the rich, and the upper middle class, the college educated, and all minority groups. That leaves the Republicans with lower middle class, uneducated white guys. They need to expand that base or be forever in the minority.

I agree...

I was rooting heavily for McCain, and I really think he would have done job with a better VP pick, and he should stuck to a fiscal conservqative line, especially now. Of course, running a less scatterbrained campaign would also have helped