HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Whom do you want as the R...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:06 PM

 

Whom do you want as the Repuke nominee in 2012 and why? Given all the

sniping going on today about Ron Paul, I thought a non-judgmental thread that asked DUers whom they want as the Repuke nominee to run against Obama in 2012 and their reasons would be a useful aid to discussion.

I will start.

For myself, I would like to see Obama run against Ron Paul because I think the philosophical debate between the competing poles of government should do (and cost) as little as possible (Paul) vs. government should provide for the common welfare (Obama) would be a good one for this democratic republic.

As a side note, I think Obama would win in a landslide of 1964 proportions and would probably have coat tails for down ballot races.

But the main reason I favor Paul as the Repuke nominee is that I think democracies are healthiest when they have vigorous debate between starkly opposing visions.

68 replies, 5919 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 68 replies Author Time Post
Reply Whom do you want as the Repuke nominee in 2012 and why? Given all the (Original post)
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 OP
Le Taz Hot Dec 2011 #1
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #2
Le Taz Hot Dec 2011 #10
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #39
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #51
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #67
Le Taz Hot Dec 2011 #53
Warpy Dec 2011 #3
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #6
mdmc Dec 2011 #4
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #8
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #5
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #11
WI_DEM Dec 2011 #7
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #17
randome Dec 2011 #9
Bucky Dec 2011 #65
AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #12
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #14
AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #18
AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #19
randome Dec 2011 #21
AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #23
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #29
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #24
KamaAina Dec 2011 #52
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #54
MineralMan Dec 2011 #13
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #15
MineralMan Dec 2011 #25
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #28
denverbill Dec 2011 #16
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #20
MineralMan Dec 2011 #26
LonePirate Dec 2011 #22
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #27
Jim Lane Dec 2011 #30
csziggy Dec 2011 #31
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #32
csziggy Dec 2011 #33
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #34
gkhouston Dec 2011 #35
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #36
Remember Me Dec 2011 #37
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #38
Autumn Dec 2011 #40
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #41
DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 #42
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #43
quinnox Dec 2011 #44
Broderick Dec 2011 #45
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #46
quinnox Dec 2011 #47
Zorra Dec 2011 #48
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #50
Zorra Dec 2011 #59
tabbycat31 Dec 2011 #49
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #56
RZM Dec 2011 #55
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #57
NorthCarolina Dec 2011 #58
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #63
NorthCarolina Dec 2011 #68
AlinPA Dec 2011 #60
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #61
ThomWV Dec 2011 #62
LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #64
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #66

Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:09 PM

1. Well, in that the Republicans in CA

pushed for and got Open Primaries, I'm looking forward to casting my first vote in the 2012 Republican Primary for Michelle Bachmann because she is the batshittiest of all the batshit crazies on the Republican roster. And that's saying a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:11 PM

2. She definitely has a heaping helping of the crazy. So I take it you

 

are using your primary vote strategically to try to secure the weakest opponent for Obama in the GE? Not a bad idea and I may have to follow your lead

On a serious note, I still think a race between Obama and Paul could go a long way to laying the ghost of Reagan to rest once and for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:21 PM

10. That's exactly my strategy.

Although I think all the Republican primary candidates are weak opponents for Obama -- he'll win by default because of it and they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:03 AM

39. Only two candidates go forward in the final election.

Therefore, I am not going to waste my vote on a Republican. I want to make sure our next president will be a Democrat.

Since no more progressive Democrat has stepped forward and agreed to run, I will vote for Obama in the primary election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:13 PM

51. Obama's re-nomination seems a foregone conclusion now which opens up

 

the possibility for us Californians to vote strategically in the open primary for the Repuke we would most like to see run against Obama. Opens up all kinds of 13-dimension chess possibilities of which I was unaware until Le Taz Hot surfaced the notion in this thread. Although I think a Paul nomination (and the resultant policy debate between Obama and Paul) would best serve the health of the republic, I have seen and read many arguments here that are at least as compelling if not more so for why other Repukes would be more suitable. It's been fascinating and humbling having the privilege to see my fellow DUers' formidable intelligence(s) at work. One of the reasons I so love this place

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:49 AM

67. I'll be voting for Obama in the primary. I'm not that much of a supporter of him, but

I do not want to take any chance that I might have to choose between two Republicans in Nov. 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:18 PM

53. Not sure I understand your argument.

In that Obama WILL be the nominee there's no reason I need to vote for him in the primary whereas the Republicans DO have several candidates and I feel it is my duty as a bed-wetting, bleeding-heart liberal to vote for the most batshit crazy Republican in the bunch and that would be Michelle Bachmann (though it WAS close). I'll have to shower vigorously after the experience but I feel it's the least I can do for my country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:14 PM

3. Given the RNC's history of racketeering in elections

I think I'd prefer to see Romney heading the ticket. He will have a wingnut tied around his neck and dragging him down, but if he's cheated into office, he's greasy enough to betray the ideologues should the economy come crashing down completely.

Paul is a rigid ideologue. The disaster would be complete were he to be cheated into office.

Romney, of course, will argue the starkly opposing vision at least as well as Paul but without the doctor's delivery making him sound more reasonable than he is and fooling the weak minded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:17 PM

6. That's an excellent point you raise and one I had not considered. To wit, if the shit

 

hits the fan with the economy while the Repukes hold the executive branch, which Repuke will be most likely to act in at least a semi-sane manner?

Now that's some 16-dimension chess

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:15 PM

4. me too

 

Ron Paul cause he is cool..

Obama will win vs any of em..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mdmc (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:20 PM

8. You know, I had not considered the 'retro' appeal of a reactionary like Paul. His

 

vision is so late 19th-century that I suppose to certain demographics he does come across as 'cool.'

I think Obama would probably have the toughest campaign against Huntsman but he's currently polling around 5%, so I agree with you that I think Obama will defeat any of the plausible Repuke nominees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:16 PM

5. If they nominate Bernie Sanders I'd vote Republican for the first time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:21 PM

11. Hah! The day the Repukes nominate Bernie Sanders is the day the

 

sun rises in the west and sets in the east. We will definitely have gone through the Looking Glass!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:19 PM

7. I'll take any of them because I think Obama can beat them all

even Romney. Paul has enthusiasm among students because of his anti-war theme. But he won't be the GOP nominee, even though I expect he will win in Iowa (but then again, the first George Bush beat Ronald Reagan in Iowa in 1980 & Pat Robertson beat George Bush there in 1988), but he doesn't have the money or organization nationwide to compete in all the contests.

If I could pick a nominee it would be Newt because I think he would be the easiest of the clowns to beat--him or Perry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:32 PM

17. I think Paul or Perry may be the easiest for Obama to defeat. Gingrich has

 

this sort of slimy, evil genius that would seduce many otherwise decent people to vote their selfishness. (OTOH: the prospect of a President Gingrich got me to terminate my brief flirtation with a 3rd party vote in the GE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:21 PM

9. I want the spider in my garage to be the Republican nominee.

He's very studious and creative.

And polite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:47 AM

65. Given those characteristics, I'm certain your spider isn't a Republican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:22 PM

12. I don't want any of them. Let them sort it out.

They are basically choosing which candidate loses to President O.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:26 PM

14. I understand. I guess I was also asking from the standpoint of

 

which candidate you thought would be best for the republic itself? Or are you saying the health of the republic doesn't really depend much on whom the Repukes nominate? That's definitely a position I had not thought of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #14)


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:36 PM

19. I think the longer the GOP primary drags out, the more GOP douchebaggery will surface.

?w=604

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:38 PM

21. I don't know.

I think their bag of douchebaggery is about empty at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:40 PM

23. Newt comes up with new crazy each day it seems. Now he wants to jail judges

with whom he disagrees. Derp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:54 PM

29. What's even scarier is that Newt's anti-judiciary demagoguery is taken seriously by a

 

statistically significant segment of the population. (Right now, Gingrich is polling at 14% in the latest PPP poll out of Iowa, for example.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:43 PM

24. Agree that a long GOP primary best serves

 

Obama's and the country's interests for the reason you specify. At this point, though, I cannot think of how they could be any more douche-baggy (not sure that's a word, but it probably should be) than they already have revealed themselves to be. I guess, though, I still retain some childish faith in the American people's underlying decency and that a lengthy Repuke nominating process would give many opportunities for that decency to manifest itself as utter revulsion to Repuke policies and positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:16 PM

52. Best for the republic itself: Huntsman

We might actually be able to survive four years of Huntsman.

Best for causing the repuke party to go down in flames like the Hindenburg: Bachmann, Perry, Santorum (yes, he's still running!).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:48 PM

54. Yeah, I get your point about Huntsman. No coincidence that he is

 

polling between 4-6%. (The Fox Commentators were positively insulting towards him in the after-debate roundup last Thursday.)

When you mentioned the Hindenburg, I flashed on Chris Christie of New Jersey. Some latent anti-fat bias of mine having to do with blimps and what-not, I guess

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:24 PM

13. Let the clowns in the clown car pick their own candidate.

I already have mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:29 PM

15. Let's say that Obama is going to win in a landslide, no

 

matter whom the Repukes nominate.

Which Repuke candidate do you think will best serve the larger interests of the republic? Or do you think it doesn't make much difference?

As I've said before, I'd like to see the legacy of Reagan laid to rest once and for all (or at least for the next couple generations). A debate between Obama and Paul would fulfill that desire of mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:43 PM

25. No. There is no Republican candidate that will

"serve the larger interests of the republic." Not a single one of the clowns currently running, and not any Republican who is not currently running.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #25)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:50 PM

28. I get that, I really do. I can't say I disagree entirely, truth to tell. From a

 

purely Machiavellian point of view, is there any Repuke you think is weaker than the rest and would give Obama the longest coat tails? I've seen convincing arguments made for either Bachmann or Gingrich thus far, although I feel pretty confident that a Paul candidacy would also result in an Obama landslide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:31 PM

16. Actually, I agree with you.

Frankly, I'm not all that unsure if I would vote for Obama or Paul.

I'm a former libertarian who gave up on libertarian philosophy long, long ago. I think libertarian economic theory is simplistic and unworkable, as unworkable as communism. 'It sounds good in theory' as they always used to say about communism.

That being said, Paul's stands on foreign policy, the drug war, and against domestic spying are definitely better than Obama's.

And Obama, even with complete control of Congress for 2 years, didn't exactly do anything George W wouldn't have been proud of domestically. He could have allow reimportation of drugs and saved Americans billions but he threw that out the window before the debates even started. He could have broken up the 'too big to fail' banks. He could have ended the Bush tax cuts. He could have ended the war on drugs. Instead he gave us a health care plan with no public option that mandates everyone to buy health insurance. Oddly, that was a Heritage Foundation plan from the 1990's, a libertarian think-tank plan.

I haven't voted for anyone but a Democrat for President since I voted for Ford in 1976 in my first election. But if Paul wins, that might change. His economic policies might suck, but with trillion dollar deficits, he will be limited in what he can do there. At least his foreign policies would be an improvement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denverbill (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:37 PM

20. Under no circumstances would I cast a vote for Paul in the 2012 GE. I would

 

prefer to see him as the Repuke nominee, though, because I think the debate between competing philosophies of governance would be very healthy for our country.

The main show-stopper for me with regard to Paul (among many lesser problem points) is that Paul would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade and make reproductive choice a matter for each state to determine. As you can tell from my nom de plume, I'm as anti-war as they come, but the right to choose is one of those bell-weather issues for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denverbill (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:45 PM

26. Another vote for Ron Paul, eh?

No, thanks, very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:38 PM

22. Gingrich as he will help us run some victories in Congressional races as people vote against Rs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 04:46 PM

27. Excellent perspective - had not considered the 'negative coat tail' effect at all

 

until now.

I live in California and Le Taz Hot upthread has reminded me that we now have open primaries. Whom to vote for in the Repuke primary? (Think we need an emoticon for rubbing one's hands together gleefully

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 05:59 PM

30. That's an important consideration, but I lean toward Bachmann on that score.

OTOH, if Bachmann is driven from the race early, then Gingrich might be best (best at helping downticket Dems) among the viable candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:30 PM

31. I got a call from "TPC Polling" the other asking this question

Out of the first list I selected Newt Gingrich. I figure Obama could easily beat him.

The second list did not include Newt so I picked Rob Paul. I'd love to see GOP heads explode if he won the nomination! Plus in debates Ron Paul would contrast with Obama as you say - but in the "age versus youth" category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:38 PM

32. I've never heard of 'TPC Polling.' Did they ever tell you anywhere

 

Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)

you could go to find out the results of their polling?

Personally, I want to see the corporate media drive itself insane trying to present Paul as Obama's political equal. Obama is a skillful campaigner and will simply eviscerate Paul's positions in any head-to-head match-up. That's not because Paul's age hinders him but more so because of the internal contradictions in Paul's positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:04 PM

33. I figured it was Tea Party Corporation, LOL!

Hubby thought of "The Phone Company" - shades of "The President's Analyst"!

I never bothered looking it up. Here is one possibility: the polling company (tm) inc. Women Trend http://pollingcompany.com/ but I don't see the poll I got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:26 PM

34. Very interesting. Looks like The Polling Company has been

 

doing a lot of polling on very closely related questions. So I would wager that this place is the self-same that polled you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:40 PM

35. I don't really care. Whoever Jon Stewart can make the most fun of, I guess.

Considering the current state of the GOP, that doesn't really narrow it down...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gkhouston (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:45 PM

36. Hah! The 'comic relief' aspect had never once crossed my

 

mind until now, although it should have, given that I watched Thursday's debate live.

When it comes to the easiest to make fun of, I think I'd have to vote for Perry, followed closely by Bachmann. Although, in the hands of the right parodist, Paul would make excellent fodder too.

Thanks, as always

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 09:19 PM

37. The way I see it

 

Each of the current field is so nuts crazy that even the Republican base (except perhaps the most ardent TeaBaggers) recognizes it at some level -- thus the low poll numbers. So I see Obama as a shoo-in simply because he's the sane one. AND because the country really is more liberal than conservative, voter suppression efforts notwithstanding.

That said, my preferences on the GOP nominee goes at least 3 ways:

1. If Obama is going to be the clear winner, Newt would provide the most entertainment (tho Romney comes 2nd in that race of the candidates that stand any chance in hell of the nomination), and the pleasure of watching Newt implode would be enormous.

OR

2. If Obama is going to be the clear winner, I think Ron Paul (or Romney) would provide the most substantive debates.

OR

3. If it's going to be in any way close, and we might end up with a Republican next time, the one I want to see as nominee is John Huntsman. I think he's a little more sane and a little more centrist than all the others. I think he's been caught pandering -- moving to the right on abortion, wasn't it? -- and I find that disappointing, in anyone, but I find him, given what little I know about him, the best pick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remember Me (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:57 AM

38. Excellent analysis. I share your assessment of the general election - the Repuke who would

 

give Obama the toughest run for his money (Huntsman) is the Repuke currrently polling lowest. For entertainment value, I'd go with Perry or Bachmann (or a Perry\Bachmann ticket for added yucks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:49 AM

40. Ronald Reagan, because he is a good republican

My Dad always said the only good republican is one who's dead and buried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:29 AM

41. Hah! That's a good one. Your Dad was quite wise, imo, and it

 

appears that wisdom runs in the family

Bravo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:00 AM

42. I'd prefer they not field a candidate ar all

 

Whomever it is, s/he will lose to Obama, because the GOPhers are gonzo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeathToTheOil (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:13 AM

43. I think we both know they will field a candidate. I have been

 

fascinated here to see how various people have approached the question. It's really cool seeing how different people's minds work around the same question and bring different perspectives to it, especially if the debate remains civil and non-judgmental.

As but one example, the very first response here (by Le Taz Hot), has me adjusting my own stance vis-a-vis the California primary and how I may approach it. Turns out Californians get to vote in 'open primaries,' a fact of which I was unaware prior to launching this thread. So that will allow me to cast a 'strategic' vote in the Repuke primary, if I so choose, in order to help Obama in the general election. Fascinating stuff! Maybe not 13-dimension chess, but a good start!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:20 AM

44. Romney

 

Mainly because I'm worried Obama is very vulnerable to losing on account of the weak economy and his unpopularity in his approval numbers, which have been bad for some time now.

If we have to lose the presidency, and I think there is some danger of that happening, I want the most sane and moderate republican candidate as the new president and this is clearly Mitt Romney.

The other GOP candidates are either insane or downright scary and dangerous, especially Newt Gingrich. This guy is frightening IMHO. Personally, I would be shocked if Ron Paul actually won the republican nomination. I think the odds are very much against him. But it sure is interesting with a guy like him in the race and possibly having a shot to win Iowa...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:23 AM

45. AGREE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:34 AM

46. For a slightly different spin on why Romney would be preferable, see posts 3-4 upthread. If we

 

want the sanest of the current crop of Repukes, my vote would be with Huntsman (who is currently polling in the 4-6%, no doubt the final remnants of the Rockefeller wing of the party).

Definitely agree with you that Paul keeps it interesting in Iowa and beyond. His stance favoring 'states rights' is an absolute show-stopper for me to ever vote for him, but I loved watching him call Bachmann out on her saber rattling last Thursday, even if he did so in what seemed to me a somewhat fumbling manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:55 AM

47. yea, Paul did fumble that exchange

 

I agree. Which is funny in a way, because Ron Paul has had some good moments in the debates, and can sometimes really let loose some good lines in a concise and compelling manner, but for some reason he lost it when he was debating Bachmann on the war and came off badly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:53 PM

48. I worry that Paul could attack Obama in his most vulnerable places

and actually get some progressive Dems so angry at Obama that they stay home on election day.

I'm not happy with Obama, but I want him to get another term, primarily because I detest republicans but secondly because I feel with a Dem in the WH it will make it easier for Occupy to grow without aggressive active legal repression of our movement. A republican would probably take a much harder line with Occupy.

Paul has just enough truth mixed in with his 1% corporatist bs that in debate he could call out Obama on several issues and make him look really bad despite the President's superior debating skills.

No other republican candidate has the platform from which they could realistically launch these types of attacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:05 PM

50. Interesting that you mention Occupy, because Paul supporters were

 

visible at Occupy Los Angeles during its opening weeks (although not camping there nor attending the General Assembly in any noticeable numbers).

I actually see no way that Paul could defeat Obama in the GE, especially once all the finer points of Paul's positions become general knowledge. And I think Obama's questionable policies and stances deserve to be 'called out'. So while I think maybe your worry is a bit over-blown, I still understand where you're coming from and appreciate your perspective.

So not to beat a dead horse, but which Repuke would you prefer to see Obama running against?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:19 PM

59. Honestly, I don't much care. Whichever one has the greatest chance of losing, I suppose.

I don't want to feel any stress over a close election. I'm not at all excited about this election and just want it over, with Obama in the WH for 4 more years. As I said earlier, I think this will be the best option for Occupy to continue growing, and will be by far the least damaging scenario for the country as things stand now.

I see Occupy as the only possible agent for constructive positive change at this point.

Paul supporters were at Occupy Phoenix during the opening weeks also. They were not there to support Occupy. Their core ideology is diametrically opposed to neutralizing the power of the 1%. They were only there to try to get converts to the Paul camp. They were basically ignored, and quickly packed up land left just like they did in LA.

They totally pissed me off because they were so disgustingly disingenuous, deliberately never even hinting at the fact that they were total laissez faire capitalists, running a sickening little marketing campaign that included handing out flyers for a dance to support Ron Paul at a local club.

They're so not Occupy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:30 PM

49. Rick Santorum

Reason-- Mr. Frothy Mix is probably the easiest to defeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabbycat31 (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:54 PM

56. Yeah, I think in pure lameness, Santorum might

 

be the easiest for Obama to vanquish. I'd like the 2012 issue to lay the Reagan legacy to rest, once and for all. But your point about Santorum being easiest to defeat is equally valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:53 PM

55. Romney would present the biggest challenge to Obama

 

Paul, Perry, Bachmann, Hunstsman, and Santorum would be thrashed. Newt would lose, though not as big as those four would. Romney would most likely lose as well too, though probably not by a large margin.

Obama vs. Romney would be a cleaner campaign than Obama vs. Gingrich and it would maybe be a bit more about the issues than personalities/baggage etc. I guess it depends on whether you want a sure thing or a more substantive contest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #55)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:00 PM

57. I agree that Obama v. Romney would probably be 'cleaner' but maybe not

 

quite as clear-cut a choice as Obama v. Paul.

A couple posts on this thread have made the apt observation that, in the unlikely event of a Repuke win, should the economy fall apart after January 2009, it would be preferable to have a sane Repuke at the helm rather than one of the kooks. Another argument for Romney (although I think Huntsman is better than Romney on the sanity scale).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:10 PM

58. That's an easy one..Ron Paul, and the reasons should be obvious

On issues such as the ongoing "war on terror", Paul is much closer to public opinion than Obama such as closing of foreign bases, ending all aggression in Afghanistan, pulling paid mercenaries from Iraq. That would force Obama to either defend his policies at the risk of turning off voters, or take a new stand that is far to the left of where he currently resides. The same would be true of money in politics, where Paul would highlight Obama's Wall Street ties in a public forum, and again force Obama to take a stand far to the left of his current position. Conversely, although Obama could attack Paul on his desire to end social safety nets, Paul would counter that Obama is not so far from his position in that he personally insisted on putting programs such as Medicare and Social Security on the chopping block, again, forcing Obama to take a stand far to the left of his current position or risk appearing hypocritical.

With Romney and to a lesser degree Gingrich, there would not be enough policy difference from Obama to put Obama in a position where he would have to waver much from his right of center positions, and his Wall Street ties would certainly never come into question as neither GOP candidate fares any better in these areas.

Paul would also put Obama on the defensive in areas of the Patriot Act, NDAA, and even the Federal Reserve.

A Ron Paul candidacy would, in fact, be a god send. He wouldn't win, BUT the campaign season would be a full disclosure event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:46 AM

63. Interesting analysis. Isn't it just as likely that Obama might force Paul

 

to tack away from his extreme right-wing advocacy of 'states' rights' or risk political oblivion? It would definitely be an interesting general election campaign were Paul to be the Repuke nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #63)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:52 AM

68. Zero chance of that

Ron Paul is the only candidate in the running who has not wavered in his positions during his entire tenure in office. I may not agree with everything he stands for, but if you do a search you be hard pressed to find even one instance of his flip flopping on any issue. A Ron Paul candidacy would be the best thing that could happen for Democrats, and for America in general at this point in time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:30 PM

60. Palin. It would be a riot and we would win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlinPA (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:39 PM

61. Caribou Barbie would definitely make for some comic moments

 

never to be forgotten, that's for sure. I can scarcely contemplate her on the same debate platform as Obama, especially after Biden so deftly handled her in 2008.

On a technical note, I suppose I should have clarified in my OP that I was interested in who among announced Repuke candidates DUers would prefer to see as the nominee. That was my intent, altho Palin deserved mentioning and I'm glad you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:48 PM

62. On the off chance that he might win I suppose I'd prefer Huntsman but I'd take Romney

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:43 AM

64. Whoever is most likely to lose!

As regards:

' I think democracies are healthiest when they have vigorous debate between starkly opposing visions. '

I am not sure about that. Certainly, I think that a healthy democracy debates opposing views rather than banning them. However, I think that a democracy can be very healthy when the far right is marginalized and the main debates are between for example the likes of Bernie Sanders and the likes of Obama. In some Europaean countries, especially in Scandinava, this has been at times the case, and the countries have been none the worse for it.

In the UK, one of our best times as a democracy was during the post-war 'consensus' period when most leaders of both mainstream parties accepted the welfare state and the concept of a full-employment state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:37 AM

66. The latter portion of your post pre-supposes that we have meaningful center

 

and left alternatives which we do not currently have at the national party level. The Occupy Movement offers some tantalizing possibilities in that direction (of a left alternative) but, as yet, OWS claims to be apolitical and has not yet fielded a slate of candidates nor officially endorsed any.

Still, your observations about the social utility of marginalizing the 'far right' strike me as fundamentally sound. At the risk of triggering Godwin's law for the purposes of offering a historical analogy, the clash of views in 1933 between the Socialist Party and the Nazi Party served principally to legitimize Hitler even further in the eyes of the German people, while not providing much additional benefit to the German working class. Since the Nazi Party at the time enjoyed between 25-33% support in the polls, though, I'm not sure it could be marginalized in any meaningful sense.

Good to hear your thoughtful take though and thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread