Primary 2012: Electing an Incurious Texan Governor Worked So Well Before...

enlightenedbum

(OP largely stolen from my previous OP)

This thread is to talk about the upcoming 2012 (Republican) Presidential primary and things which will affect the Presidential election next November. Yes, that's 15 months away. We're obsessives.

Predictions!

Predictions:

Mitt Romney - Speaker, WWmain00, Hachface, lonelyahava, Yougottawanna, rndmhero, Jakorian, Space Coyote, ElJeffe, PantsB, Captain Carrot, Kipling217
Mike Huckabee - Dojango, CommunistCow, Gosling, Zython, Styrofoam Sammich, Burtletoy
Sarah Palin - Lord Yod, enlightenedbum, Thanatos, Pi-r8, DoctorArch, Octoparrot, TheBlackWind
Marc Rubio - Holyyakker
Haley Barbour - Optimus Zed, sterling3763
Chris Christie - Brian Krakow, Bacardi,
Santorum - Quid
Alan Keyes - Coinage
John Boehner - MyDcmbr
Ron Paul - gtrmp, Tastyfish
Mitch Daniels - iTunesIsEvil
Rick Perry - AngelHedgie (many, many months before he entered the race), s7apster
Donald Trump - Override367, Jokerman
Newt Gingrich - Rockrnger
Tim Pawlenty - Cervetus, Captain Ultra, Hedgethorn, Absalon
Michelle Bachman - Taramoor, Tox
Herman Cain - devCharles, SageinaRage, Tubular Luggage
Stephen Colbert - Bagginses


Contenders:

Your leader at the moment is Mitt "Mittens" Romney. We remember him from the previous primary. He has a serious problem in the primary in that he supported an individual mandate for health care and signed such a thing into law in Massachusetts back when that was the orthodox Republican position. Sadly for him, Barack Obama now supports such a position, which means he must be destroyed. Also, he's Mormon, which is an issue. Because that's "weird" according to Politico.

Just entering the race today is Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas. He has the combination of plausible insanity (TM Chris Hayes of The Nation and MSNBC) and comfort with the RNC's power brokers, as well as some good political instincts. He also has leadership hair and is tall. We'll see how he fairs with a national campaign, but he should probably scare Romney. And the country, as his politics are extreme. Just about as extreme as the inexplicably doing well...

Michelle Bachmann. Who now has to be listed as a contender. She's a Congresswoman from Minnesota, and is completely insane. And has no idea what she's talking about half the time. But she speaks the appropriate shibboleths, so is doing well. Perry's entry might re-marginalize her as he looks more like a traditional Republican and is more comfortable with their big business overlords.

Other people participating:
Jon Huntsman! Former Governor of Utah and Obama's ambassador to China. He's the most moderate of this group and has some things going for him. None of those things is a chance at winning the nomination, but he could be VP or he could be increasing his name recognition for 2016.
Rick Santorum! Is a joke. Google his name (not at work!) to see why. Dumbest Senator of the last 20 years, from Pennsylvania. Would like to invade Iran, kind of a lot. To protect the gays, apparently. Which means, if elected, he will support bombing himself.
Herman Cain! Is a black Republican. Good luck with that. Former KC Fed chair, CEO of Godfather's Pizza.
Ron Paul! RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL. Congressman from Texas. Gold enthusiast. Isolationist.
Gary Johnson! Ron Paulier. Former Governor of New Mexico.
Newt Gingrich! Ugh. Former Speaker of the House from the DC cocktail circuit (by way of Georgia).
Thaddeus McCotter! Who? Exactly. Representative from Michigan. Plays guitar badly. Represents Canton, where my best friend grew up. This is literally all I know about him.

Not yet participating:

Sarah Palin! The elephant in the room. Former half-term Governor of Alaska, VP nominee. Dumb as a stone, has a persecution complex. Is a confusing combination of terrifying and awesome (Obama wins Texas against her, at the moment). Now touring Iowa on her "vacation bus." Whatever, Sarah.
Rudy Giuliani! Polls strangely well until he starts running, will probably get a further bump by the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 next month.

Not participating at all:

Mike Huckabee! Terrifyingly charismatic douche, former Governor of Arkansas.
Mitch Daniels! Bush OMB Director, current Governor of Indiana.
Donald Trump! Self-promoter.
A variety of other people, but those are the three that were most frequently talked about.

People who tried and failed to participate:
Tim Pawlenty! Former Governor of Minnesota. Kind of sucks at this. Is polling far worse than expected. Slightly more moderate than most, but not more so than either Romney or Huntsman. Is largely indistinguishable from every other man who has run for President and lost in the last 30 years. I have little to say about him.

The major issue of the moment is obviously Perry's entrance into the race, which is drowning out the largely meaningless Ames straw poll. We just had a debate the other night, in which all of the candidates who might get votes except Perry said they would do some extreme things, like not supporting a 10:1 cuts/tax hikes margin in a debt reduction bill. Yikes.

DiannaoChong

I get the mindset to an extent, but I only recently saw all(most? it was a shitty video) the hands go up at the "who wont support 10:1 cuts/tax ratio". Now with just a few raising at first, can we assume that the remainder followed suit? or is the mindset so far gone that "we tried compromises, so now we either get our way or destroy the country when we take control"?

Lawndart

DiannaoChong wrote:

I get the mindset to an extent, but I only recently saw all the hands go up at the "who wont support 10:1 cuts/tax ratio". Now with just a few raising at first, can we assume that the remainder followed suit? or is the mindset so far gone that "we tried compromises, so now we either get our way or destroy the country when we take control"?

It's a purity test. Saying you support a tax increase in front of Republican primary voters would be a death sentence, and every candidate knows that.

What's scary is that, unlike previous GOP primaries, there are more than a few candidates who don't seem like they'd try and track back to the middle once they won the nomination.

shryke

Lawndart wrote:

DiannaoChong wrote:

I get the mindset to an extent, but I only recently saw all the hands go up at the "who wont support 10:1 cuts/tax ratio". Now with just a few raising at first, can we assume that the remainder followed suit? or is the mindset so far gone that "we tried compromises, so now we either get our way or destroy the country when we take control"?

It's a purity test. Saying you support a tax increase in front of Republican primary voters would be a death sentence, and every candidate knows that.

What's scary is that, unlike previous GOP primaries, there are more than a few candidates who don't seem like they'd try and track back to the middle once they won the nomination.

The GOP is all about purity testing these days. I think this article on the debate said it best:

Primary debates are usually watched for what they say about the candidates, but they’re generally important for what they say about the party. This one was no different. With the notable exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, the candidates didn’t disagree over policy. They disagreed over fealty to policy.

Bachmann didn’t attack Pawlenty’s policy proposals. She attacked him for past statements suggesting he might believe in other policy proposals, like the individual mandate and cap-and-trade. Palwenty’s assault on Romney took the same form. This debate wasn’t about what policies the candidates believed in. That was largely a given. This debate was about which of the candidates believed in those policies the most.

The best policy in this debate wasn’t the policy most likely to work, or the policy most likely to pass. It was the most orthodox policy. The policy least sullied by compromise.

Perhaps no candidate is better suited for that world than Michele Bachmann. But tellingly, the candidate who is best on the politics also proved worst on the policy.

Over and over again, Bachmann misstated basic facts.

It’s fitting that the candidate best able to resist compromise is the candidate who seems least able to correctly explain the policies at issue and the choices we face. It’s a lot easier to take a hard line if you don’t understand the consequences of your actions, and a lot simpler to belt out applause lines if you’re not slowed down by the messy complexities of the issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/no-winners-in-thursdays-debate-but-many-losers/2011/07/11/gIQAMYNy9I_blog.html#pagebreak

Taramoor

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/328588/IOWA-STRAW-POLL.jpg

That's the line for Bachmann's tent.

C'mon Crazy Eyes, win this thing for me!

Lawndart

Taramoor wrote:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/328588/IOWA-STRAW-POLL.jpg

That's the line for Bachmann's tent.

C'mon Crazy Eyes, win this thing for me!

I'm pretty sure Bachmann will be in the top two for both the Ames straw poll and the eventual Iowa caucus, because Iowa Republicans are fucking crazy Dominionists. I'm not sure if she'll carry that momentum through New Hampshire and South Carolina, though.

Clevinger

I predict Perry is going to win the nomination. He's better looking, more charismatic, and a better speaker than Romney. Plus he can run on jobs, jobs, jobs and keep pointing out that Romney made his living slashing a shitload of jobs in the private sector.

Taramoor

Clevinger wrote:

I predict Perry is going to win the nomination. He's better looking, more charismatic, and a better speaker than Romney. Plus he can run on jobs, jobs, jobs and keep pointing out that Romney made his living slashing a shitload of jobs in the private sector.

The Constitution says that “the Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes… to provide for the… general Welfare of the United States.” But I noticed that when you quoted this section on page 116, you left “general welfare” out and put an ellipsis in its place. Progressives would say that “general welfare” includes things like Social Security or Medicare—that it gives the government the flexibility to tackle more than just the basic responsibilities laid out explicitly in our founding document. What does “general welfare” mean to you?

[PERRY:] I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that. From my perspective, the states could substantially better operate those programs if that’s what those states decided to do.

So in your view those things fall outside of general welfare. But what falls inside of it? What did the Founders mean by “general welfare”?

[PERRY:] I don’t know if I’m going to sit here and parse down to what the Founding Fathers thought general welfare meant.

But you just said what you thought they didn’t mean by general welfare. So isn’t it fair to ask what they did mean? It’s in the Constitution.
[Silence.]

Seriously. This is from, like, two days ago.

Anyone who votes for this man should be tried for treason.

Chanus

Clevinger wrote:

I predict Perry is going to win the nomination. He's better looking, more charismatic, and a better speaker than Romney. Plus he can run on jobs, jobs, jobs and keep pointing out that Romney made his living slashing a shitload of jobs in the private sector.

There are already holes in the Texas job growth story appearing all over the place... I'm not saying Republicans are good at hearing the truth and comprehending it... just that it's not a water-tight point for Perry.

Couscous

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/wires/live_wire/live_wire.html#1616

The ad that introduces Bachmann is *very* heavy on her bio. Perhaps because she's rather thin on accomplishments? The main one the ad highlights is that she "led a state-wide effort that reformed education in MN."

She's introduced, however, the the curiously inappropriate Elvis song that contains the refrain, "A little less conversation, a little more action."

From looking at the lyrics to the song, it appears Bachmann wants to fuck America

Kipling217

Sign me up for Mittens.

Still think he is the one to beat and Perry has got to much of the Bush stink over him.

Captain Carrot

I still contend that there's little real evidence of any Bush curse.

Glyph

Let's not fly off the handle here. If a Republican gets elected, we might actually see things get done in Washington because Dems are generally more willing to compromise than the GOP. Which means the GOP can focus more on passing middle ground reforms without worrying about having to play politics too much.

Let's not forget, only Nixon could get us into China. A Democrat would've been scared to death of seeming like he was extending a hand out to communists.

Cantelope

Glyph wrote:

Let's not fly off the handle here. If a Republican gets elected, we might actually see things get done in Washington because Dems are generally more willing to compromise than the GOP. Which means the GOP can focus more on passing middle ground reforms without worrying about having to play politics too much.

Let's not forget, only Nixon could get us into China. A Democrat would've been scared to death of seeming like he was extending a hand out to communists.

I don't think there will be any middle ground reform if a Republican is elected, that's why I don't vote Republican. If the GOP was running on a campaign that included reasonable reform, and compromise, I might vote for them.

Couscous

Glyph wrote:

Let's not fly off the handle here. If a Republican gets elected, we might actually see things get done in Washington because Dems are generally more willing to compromise than the GOP. Which means the GOP can focus more on passing middle ground reforms without worrying about having to play politics too much.

Let's not forget, only Nixon could get us into China. A Democrat would've been scared to death of seeming like he was extending a hand out to communists.

Nixon didn't have tea partiers to deal with and the rabid anticommunism of that era was much more limited in scope.

Lawndart

Glyph wrote:

Let's not fly off the handle here. If a Republican gets elected, we might actually see things get done in Washington because Dems are generally more willing to compromise than the GOP. Which means the GOP can focus more on passing middle ground reforms without worrying about having to play politics too much.

Let's not forget, only Nixon could get us into China. A Democrat would've been scared to death of seeming like he was extending a hand out to communists.

"Middle ground" between what and what, though? The GOP base has rejected Bush Jr. style "compassionate conservatism" in favor of radical austerity. I can't see what positive things would get done with a Republican President in 2013, especially with a GOP Senate (which is a pretty certain result) and a House split between Republicans and Teaper Republicans.

Squirrelmob

Didn't Perry seriously suggest secession at one point? Or was that an incredibly overblown thing?

Tox

First things first...

!Bachmann

Now then. I missed the debate Who ended up winning the straw poll?

Lawndart

Squirrelmob wrote:

Didn't Perry seriously suggest secession at one point? Or was that an incredibly overblown thing?

He's claimed Texas has the right to secede if Washington "continues to thumb its nose at the American people".

Clevinger

Tox wrote:

First things first...

!Bachmann

Now then. I missed the debate Who ended up winning the straw poll?

The straw poll is going on right now. It sounds like Bachmann will win it; long, supposedly unprecedented lines of people for her.

Tox

Clevinger wrote:

Tox wrote:

I missed the debate Who ended up winning the straw poll?

The straw poll is going on right now. It sounds like Bachmann will win it; long, supposedly unprecedented lines of people for her.

yesssssssssssss

OptimusZed

I have yet to see anything that impresses me with Perry beyond him unwittingly admitting to an extremely limited knowledge about how the Constitution actually works.

And the reality is that the straw poll is going to be a political loss for him and he'll be playing catch up with Bachmann for the same votes.

I really don't see him being relevant to anyone outside the DC cocktail circuit.

TubularLuggage

I'm still hoping there's a strong turn out for Rick Parry. With an A. For America. For Iowa.

Johnny Chopsocky

Who's ready for Bachmann-Palin Overdrive in 2012?

... because I sure as fuck am not.

Ron Paul is the only one among them that doesn't inspire blinding hate in me, so I'm rooting for him in the primary. He doesn't have a goddamn prayer, but he's the only one I can support without needing to shower afterwards.

MyDcmbr

Pi-r8

The OP should include Fred Karger, if you're going to include Thaddeus McCotter.

Couscous

"It is time to get America working again," he said. "That's why, with the support of my family, and an unwavering belief in the goodness of America, I declare to you today my candidacy for President of the United States."

From there he pivoted to a red-meat speech decrying President Obama's economic record, accusing him of trying to raise taxes to build up government and appointing pro-labor members to the NLRB. According to Perry, Obama "prolonged our national misery, not alleviated it."

"There is no taxpayer money that was not first earned by the sweat and toil of one our citizens," he said. "That's why we reject this president's unbridled fixation on taking more money out of the wallets and pocketbooks of American families and employers and giving it to a central government."

He also decried Obama's "incoherent muddle" of foreign policy, saying that "our President has insulted our friends and he's encouraged our enemies." He accused Obama of "thumbing his nose" at Israel by calling for using its 1967 borders with additional land swaps as the basis for negotiations over Palestinian statehood.

Gee golly, what a brilliant plan to fix the economy.
Interview with Perry.

Q: But the counterargument is that if GM collapsed, there would have been tons of jobs lost—and now it’s profitable again. Without TARP, the banking system would’ve imploded—and now the money’s been paid back.

A: I don’t necessarily buy into the premise that somehow or another those measures saved these jobs. There are companies that get restructured on a regular basis and the workers don’t lose their jobs. They get new management, they put a pay-out plan in place and we go on about our business rather than getting these huge amounts of debt piled on future generations.

I thought most of the shit has been paid back with the bailouts?

Kipling217

MyDcmbr wrote:

I meant Mitt Romney, but I would vote for President Mittens.

Forar

TubularLuggage wrote:

I'm still hoping there's a strong turn out for Rick Parry. With an A. For America. For Iowa.

This. I am keeping my fingers crossed that this works so well that even the people supporting Citizens United have to take a step back and think really, really hard about it.

"There is no taxpayer money that was not first earned by the sweat and toil of one our citizens"

Err, what about the untold fortunes held and expanded year by year by people who did sweet fuck all other than be lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family?

People who have money because they have money, in a very, very circular system with few ins or outs barring exceptional circumstances.

MyDcmbr

Forar wrote:

TubularLuggage wrote:

I'm still hoping there's a strong turn out for Rick Parry. With an A. For America. For Iowa.

This. I am keeping my fingers crossed that this works so well that even the people supporting Citizens United have to take a step back and think really, really hard about it.

"There is no taxpayer money that was not first earned by the sweat and toil of one our citizens"

Err, what about the untold fortunes held and expanded year by year by people who did sweet fuck all other than be lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family?

People who have money because they have money, in a very, very circular system with few ins or outs barring exceptional circumstances.

Those people don't pay taxes so there you go. Totally factual statement on the part of Gov. Perry

Amphetamine

catching up on the debate- holy fuck bachmann vs. pawlenty is hilarious

Clevinger

Good ad for Perry (except for the silly cowboy outfit)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0n3NLgSsAg

Dynagrip

Amphetamine wrote:

catching up on the debate- holy fuck bachmann vs. pawlenty is hilarious

how long is that bit? I might want to check it out at some point.

I also enjoyed this Anti-Romney ad


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/romneys-corporations-are-people-comments-already-have-second-attack-ad.php?ref=fpb

Honk

Marrying your high school sweetheart is relevant to politics because,

Agahnim

Is.. is that Mass effect at 1:53?

override367

I like how all but one of the jobs is hardware store owner, farmhand, or factory worker

One of them is mass effect designer.

Hey are those stats accurate? 40% of the new jobs in texas?

Couscous

Agahnim wrote:

Is.. is that Mass effect at 1:53?

Probably Bioware Austin were given some work on Mass Effect.

Honk

That is definitely Shepard on the left screen, there is some other game esque thing on the rightmost screen though I can't make it out.

Clearly Perry is good for making sure his video editors don't sit around and play games all day.

Agahnim

Couscous wrote:

Agahnim wrote:

Is.. is that Mass effect at 1:53?

Probably Bioware Austin were given some work on Mass Effect.

BRB volunteering for the Perry campaign

Burtletoy

Agahnim wrote:

Is.. is that Mass effect at 1:53?

Yes.

Yes it is.

Agahnim

"willing how to make tough choices.."

*cut to him looking over mass effect*

"While unleashing the power of American Ingenuity" [in space]