Thread: 2012 Republican Presidential Contenders

^
We're sure that'll turn the tide for Huntsman, right?

BTW, Rasmussen has Perry in a commanding lead over the Obungler:

Wisconsin: Perry 46%, Obama 42%.

Bachmann ‘Out of Money and Ideas’ in Iowa, Says Former Campaign Manager

Michele Bachmann has “run out of money and ideas” and can no longer expect to win in Iowa, her former campaign manager told ABC News on Monday.

Ed Rollins, who left the campaign in September, said the Minnesota congresswoman had backed off earlier comments by her campaign that Iowa was a “must-win” state because she lacked the finances, campaign structure, and ideas to win the first-in-the-nation caucus state.

“She’s still saying the same things she said in the first the debate. There’s no substance (never was). She says, ‘I’m going to repeal Obamacare.’ But she’s been saying that from Day 1. I told her: That’s your Tea Party speech, now you have to say what you’re going to do next.”

Entire story and don’t forget she has 100,000 foster children: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...paign-manager/

New Hampshire sets its primary for Jan. 10

WEST DES MOINES, Iowa — New Hampshire will hold its presidential primary on Jan. 10, filling out the campaign calendar for the initial voting for presidential nominees next winter.

New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner announced the date, waiting to the last minute to make sure his state again has the first primary.

Iowa will kick off the season, with the first precinct caucuses on Jan. 3. After that, the Republican presidential campaign will head to New Hampshire for a full week. President Barack Obama is not now being seriously challenged for the Democratic nomination.

After New Hampshire, the campaign will move to South Carolina, which will hold its first-in-the-South primary on Jan. 21. South Carolina will offer more-conservative candidates a chance to solidify their gains, or to rebound after a disappointing finish in New Hampshire. In 2000, George W. Bush lost New Hampshire, then rebounded in South Carolina and went on to win the nomination. Several candidates already are investing time or money in South Carolina, including Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.

After South Carolina, the campaign moves down Interstate 95 to Florida, which will hold its primary on Jan. 31, the first test in a mega-state.

Florida will be the first state voting with a large Hispanic population as part of the mix. And with the winner taking all of its delegates, the state could cement a leading candidate’s momentum – or give new life to an alternative.

The next contest will come Feb. 4 in Nevada, the first in the West.

Party leaders had wanted Nevada to be one of the first four states to vote so that the campaign touched all four regions of the country – first in the Midwest with Iowa, then the Northeast with New Hampshire, then the South with South Carolina, and then the West with Nevada. But after Florida leapfrogged into the early voting, all the early states moved up their dates. Nevada at first picked Jan. 10, but that squeezed New Hampshire and risked a Nevada boycott from the candidates. Nevada ultimately moved back to February.


Link: New Hampshire sets its primary for Jan. 10 - Politics Wires - MiamiHerald.com

Feel good story of the day!

Generic GOP Candidate Beats Obama in Swing States on Jobs, Deficit

Some of y'all prefer Gallop to Rassmusson so pay heed will ya!

GOP Candidate Beats Obama in Swing States on Jobs, Deficit

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Feel good story of the day!

Generic GOP Candidate Beats Obama in Swing States on Jobs, Deficit

Some of y'all prefer Gallop to Rassmusson so pay heed will ya!

GOP Candidate Beats Obama in Swing States on Jobs, Deficit

This is exactly the result most of us would expect. Any common, run-of-the-mill, Republican should be able to easily beat Obama. The problem is that it appears the GOP will not nominate a generic candidate. Their latest favorite is a professional lobbyist, serial liar, and pretender of knowledge with a closet full of skeletons who, in my opinion, has no chance to win a general election.

There are probably 200 Republican congressmen and senators with better knowledge and experience than the front-runners we have seen so far, and who could soundly defeat Obama. The GOP nominating process will, apparently, not allow a good, solid, thinking conservative into the game. So they will end up nominating one of those side-show freaks, and we will end up with four more years of Obama.

There was a debate last night between Cain and Gingrich. I didn’t follow it (or promote it) because I thought it was a bit unfair not to have all the top contenders debating one another.

You can view a replay of the event, here (click on Video Playlist): Cain, Gingrich Debate Lincoln-Douglas Style | C-SPAN

Hotair has some coverage and a poll on who their readers thought won the debate: Open thread: Cain vs. Gingrich in Lincoln/Douglas debate


Who won the Cain-Gingrich debate?

Cain 14.39% (506 votes)

Gingrich 66.48% (2,338 votes)

Neither won 9.16% (322 votes)

Unsure/No Opinion 9.98% (351 votes)

Total Votes: 3,517

Originally Posted by Borey the Bald

The problem is that it appears the GOP will not nominate a generic candidate.

I personally doubt that- you'll get plain old vanilla Mitt. The Republican primaries are a bit of a circus really, mainly a soapbox for the right wing of the GOP and their puppeteers to make a lot of noise.

The 999 pizza boy is a Koch brothers stooge, hired and paid for by them, and blow wave Rickbaby is the darling of the Christian Right- who are intrinsically wary of Mitt because he is Mormon. They make a lot of noise, but that won't mean they carry the day.

That said, I hope I am wrong.

There was a Republican debate last night (November 9, 2011) which I wasn’t able to watch. You can watch the debate here: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/

I haven’t seen or read much about it except this,…….

All candidates seemed to escape unscathed, except Texas Governor Rick Perry, who failed in answering the question of what government agencies he would cut should he assume the Presidency. Report from The Daily Caller:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the one-time Republican front-runner who saw his star fade after a series of shabby debate performances, made yet another unforced error during Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate.

While selling his tax plan and his record in Texas, Perry said three government agencies would be eliminated in a Perry presidency. “I will tell you, it’s three agencies of government, when I get there, that are gone,” he said. “Commerce, education, and the, um, what’s the third one there …”

Perry then trailed off, unable to remember the third agency he would eliminate. Amid audience laughter, another candidate volunteered the idea of axing the Environmental Protection Agency.

“Is the EPA the one you were talking about?” moderator John Harwood asked Perry. “No sir,” Perry replied. “We were talking about the agencies of government — the EPA needs to be rebuilt, there’s no doubt about that.”

“But you can’t name a third one?” Harwood asked again. Perry then stalled for a few moments before admitting that he could not, in fact, recall the name of the third agency he would eliminate as president.

“The third one I can’t,” Perry said, smiling. “Oops.”

Here it is- it's pretty bad:

^That must have been embarrassing.

This wasn’t a good statement to make while embroiled in sexual allegations.

“Princess Nancy”? WTF?

Tea Party Nation leader: Cain should drop out

A prominent Tea Party leader is calling for Herman Cain to drop out of the presidential race.

Judson Phillips, the head of Tea Party Nation, slammed Cain's response to accusations that he had sexually harassed a number of women during the 1990s.

"Herman Cain has got to go," Judson said in an email to Tea Party Nation members. "I do not believe Cain’s accusers. There are too many questions about them. The allegations are not why Cain should leave. The campaign’s response is why he should now withdraw."

Phillips said he still liked Cain personally but that his campaign's failure to prepare for the story even though they knew about it a week before it broke showed that he was not ready to be president.

"Ten days in, the Cain campaign is still stumbling around like newly castrated cattle. [Campaign manager] Mark Block should have been gone nine days ago. Cain should have a competent team in place by now as well as someone really good at crisis management. So far, it is not there," Phillips continued.

"If Cain cannot run his own campaign, how is he going to run the country? A few days ago, I would have been willing to accept Cain as the nominee. Cain was not my first choice but I could have easily supported him. No longer."

Entire story: Tea Party Nation leader: Cain should drop out - The Hill's Ballot Box

What I got from the debate,……

Huntsman says we shouldn’t be nation building and he should have been given more time/questions.

The rest on stage were/are crazy.

Newt's are considerably less dangerous than wounded wolverines.

These Republican primaries have got me beat- except for who the obvious winner will be. Why all this inane (insane?) media space wasted on crackpot, fringe candidates, who logic tells you don't have a chance- while seemingly credible candidates like Huntsman are virtually ignored?

It's like the real GOP and the mainstream media are collaborating to drive the whole circus to it's pre-ordained conclusion. But really Mitt, you are as boring as hell.

Originally Posted by sabang

But really Mitt, you are as boring as hell.

Boring he might be but anyone with an oz of common sense won't vote for the failed community agitator again.

In case you missed it, there was another Republican debate last night sponsored by The Family Leader. Romney and Huntsman didn’t show up for good reason. I listened to some of it and found it to be very strange. There are some wacko ideas floating around in the heads of some of those Republican contenders.

Here’s a site you can visit to replay the entire debate: http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/11/1...omplete-video/

There’s another Republican debate this week: CNN 2012 Republican Presidential Debate Live Stream Video Nov. 22, 2011: Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute | Shallow Nation

The 2012 CNN Republican Presidential debate live stream video online on Tues. Nov. 22, 2011; cosponsored by the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) taking place in Washington, DC at DAR Constitution Hall. GOP candidates participate in the debate which will focus on national security and foreign policy. The moderator is Wolf Blitzer, host of The Situation Room on CNN.

The program will be broadcast live on television on cable channel CNN beginning at 8 p.m. ET (5 p.m. PT); watch live web-cast at that time.

You can watch it live here, via the net: CNN.com Live - Breaking news, live events, and today's top stories

Maybe we’ll learn something new at this debate as we did during the last one, where at least one candidate committed us to war with Iran (to prevent that nation from going nuclear) and where we learned that a republican audience will applaud waterboarding (torture) as a way to interrogate prisoners.

Seems the Republicans have a new heartthrob, Newt Gingrich after giving up on Bachmann (batshit crazy), Rick Perry (mentally challenged) and Herman Cain (doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground). Thank God for vetting.

Mr. Gingrich’s poll numbers are increasing if you believe a FOX news poll conducted November 13 -15, 2011 (Fox News Poll: Gingrich And Romney Top GOP Nominee Picks | Fox News ), where one question was:

(REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS ONLY)
12. I’m going to read a list of the announced candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination. Please tell me which one you would like to see as the Republican presidential nominee.

Newt Gingrich 23%
Mitt Romney 22%
Herman Cain 15%
Ron Paul 8%
Rick Perry 7%
Michelle Bachmann 6%
Jon Huntsman 3%
Rick Santorum 2%

So what does Mr. Gingrich bring to the table.

1) He was once the Speaker on the House.

2) He’s the only House speaker in American history to be disciplined by Congress for ethics violations.

3) He’s a hypocrite (Leading the drive to impeach Clinton over lying about adultery when he was himself lying about adultery, cheating on his wife with a staffer, Callista Bisek, who became his third wife.)

4) He’s lobbyist. Oh my mistake, he’s a histooorian who collected about 1.6 million in consulting fees (Gingrich Said to Be Paid About $1.6 Million by Freddie Mac - Bloomberg ) from Freddie Mac.

5) He a flip-flopper (Gingrich ). He says doesn’t support an Individual Health Care Mandate but his consulting firm, which was paid millions of dollars (Gingrich Group/Center for Health Transformation) does support an Individual Heath Care Mandate ( for anyone making over $50,000 a year). Newt Gingrich collected at least $37 million over the past eight years from major health-care companies and industry groups: Gingrich think tank collected millions from health-care industry - The Washington Post

6) He’s a Family Values kind of guy (a timeline):
1962 – 1980, Newt Gingrich met his first wife, Jackie Battley, while he was still in high school. Battley was his geometry teacher, and seven years his senior. (According to Gingrich's second wife Marianne Ginther, the age difference was actually nine years--Gingrich was 16 when the student-teacher courtship began). Their secret relationship included nighttime dalliances in the back of a car. The pair married in 1962, and had two children before splitting in February 1980. 1974 – 1976, During Gingrich's unsuccessful congressional campaigns in 1974 and 1976, "it was common knowledge that Newt was involved with other women during his marriage to Jackie. Maybe not on the level of John Kennedy. But he had girlfriends -- some serious, some trivial," his former campaign scheduler told Vanity Fair in 1995. A woman named Anne Manning admitted to having a relationship with Gingrich during his 1976 campaign. "We had oral sex," she said. "He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.”
1980 – 1999, Gingrich met Marianne Ginther, the 28-year-old daughter of an Ohio mayor, at a political fundraiser in 1980. They began a relationship while Gingrich was still married to his first wife; he told Ginther that they were in marital counseling and considering divorce. Things progressed quickly--Ginther met his family that summer, and they married in August 1981, six months after his divorce from Battley was finalized. "He asked me to marry him way too early," Ginther told Esquire. "And he wasn't divorced yet. I should have known there was a problem." Their marriage was over by 1999, after Ginther had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. She was in Ohio visiting her mother for Mother's Day when Gingrich called, saying he needed to talk in person. She says she intuitively knew that he was having an affair (with his soon-to-be third wife, Callista Bisek), and called a minister for marital counseling--to no avail.
1999 – present, During Gingrich and Ginther's divorce proceedings, congressional aide Calista Bisek--23 years Gingrich's junior--admitted to having a six-year affair with the former congressman. Bisek and Gingrich were regularly seen having breakfast together at the Supreme Court cafeteria throughout the 1990s, though their affair wasn't outed until 1999. At the time, Gingrich had publicly condemned former President Clinton's infidelities with Monica Lewinsky, while discreetly carrying on an affair of his own. According to Ginther, "He'd already asked [Bisek] to marry him before he asked me for a divorce." Gingrich and Bisek married in August 2000.
Link: Newt Gingrich: Marriages, Divorces, Affairs Timeline


This debate should be another agonizing evening for the American public but especially for any Republican who is embarrassed/ashamed by this team of contenders.

After viewing tonight’s debate, Rahm Emanuel might have said it best about these Republican presidential contenders last weekend when he said,……………..these candidates make him “miss the wisdom of Sarah Palin”.

Just a quick review,……….the debate focused on foreign policy and national security.

Interesting,…… during the introduction, Romney and Paul received the largest applause.

First question was about the patriot act and should the US keep it long term. Newt said yes to keep it, no changes and strengthen it. Paul disagrees with keeping the patriot act (don’t give up liberty for national security). Bachmann says ACLU controls our national security. Huntsman says protect our individual liberties. Romney says we should keep patriot act. Perry says keep it and strengthen it. Santorum says keep it. Cain said keep it.

Question about TSA pat downs. Romney says needs work. Perry says privatize TSA and get rid of unions. Santorum says profiling should be used and privatize it. Cain said we should do better with TSA and profiling should be used and privatizes it (and ask the professionals).

Question about drone campaign. Huntsman said should keep it and extend it.

About US aid to Pakistan. Bachmann says yes and demand more information from them. Perry says they cannot be trusted and cut off money until they can show us we can trust them. Newt says help us or get outa the way.

Question about money spent in Afghanistan and is that money well spent? Romney says yes, don’t cut and run. Huntsman says reduce the levels of servicemen (10 - 15,000 troops) and US have achieved goals already. Santorum says stay and don’t give timelines.

Question about helping Israel if it attacks Iran,…. would you help? Cain said if they had a credible plan, yes and join if they had a clear mission. Paul said no and get out of Israel’s way and Israel can take care of themselves (need congresses approval). Bachmann went off??

Question about Iran sanctions. Perry says sanction Iranian Central Bank. Newt says sanction Bank and energy independence. Bachmann says energy independence. Romney says make sanctions crippling.

Question about development assistance (can America afford to continue). Santorum says it is essential (promote our values). Cain looks at results. Paul says aid is worthless and export principles (no Foreign aid). Romney says stop spending foolishly (Obamacare) and stop cutting programs that will protect ourselves.

Question about spending and debt crisis and would you cut defense spending. Newt says make it more efficient. Huntsman everything should be on the table.

Bomb Iran to stop it from getting nuclear weapons. Newt says only last resort and if it included regime change.

Super committee failed. Would you compromise with Dems? Any tax increase? Perry said no leadership is why it failed and enact his flat tax. Santorum says it depends on what you would give up and don’t undermine ability of economy to grow.

Question about entitlement programs/reforms. Newt says layout new SS plan. Bachmann says balance budget first and then look to reform.

Question about borders. Perry says fencing, boots on ground, air power and working with Mexico. Paul says stop drug war and better immigration policy and eliminate all benefits to the illegals. Cain says yes borders are a national security threat, secure boarder for real, and three other reasons (?).

Question about highly skilled immigration. Santorum believes in legal immigration and went on about reform some policies.

About illegal immigrants. Newt says control border, guest worker program, give amnesty, been here 25 years we should not uproot you. Bachmann says no amnesty and no dream act. Romney says keep some (but no amnesty?) that have been here and stop illegal immigrants. Perry secure border and then have a process in place that continues to keep families together (amnesty?,…..yes that is what he said in a round about way).

Question about Syria. Cain no on no fly zone as Perry says we need and stop purchasing fuel/oil from them. Perry on no fly zone is a sanction he would put in place. Romney says no to no fly zone.

Question about Egypt. Huntsman went on about Iran and saying sanctions will not work and let history take its own course.

Question about Al-Qaida. Paul said stay out of region, stop nation building. Romney says American superiority should be strong.

Question about national security and what are your concerns not mentioned here today . Santorum concerned about S. America. Paul says stay out of their business. Perry says China. Romney says China long term, Iran and Latin America. Cain says cyber attacks. Newt went off on electro magnetics and cyber-attacks. Bachmann what everyone else says and went off on Obama. Huntsman largest problem at home.

Originally Posted by robuzo

By the way, SL, as to "any Republican who is embarrassed/ashamed"- if at this point they still call themselves "Republicans," fuck them.

I believe a large majority are ashamed at what has happened to their party and are wondering what to do about the small but vocal group that has seemed to have high-jacked it. But yeah,...some of ‘em should fuck off.

The debate will replay at 11:00 pm (EST) and I will try to link a replay (from another site) later in case you would like to view it when you have time.

Watch the full CNN GOP National Security debate (Nov. 22, 2011):

link: Video: Watch the full CNN GOP National Security debate « 2012 Election Central

These might be the highest poll numbers you see for Gingrich,…….


CNN/Opinion Research 11/18 - 11/20 Gingrich24 Romney20 Gingrich +4

Quinnipiac 11/14 - 11/20 Gingrich26 Romney22 Gingrich +4

USA Today/Gallup 11/13 - 11/17 Gingrich22 Romney21 Gingrich +1

FOX News 11/13 - 11/15 Gingrich23 Romney22 Gingrich +1

PPP (D) 11/10 - 11/13 Gingrich28 Romney18 Gingrich +3

Pew Research 11/9 - 11/14 Gingrich16 Romney23 Romney +1

Link: RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination



Because of what Newt said at the last debate about Immigration,……

For those Ron Paul fans,………

link: New Iowa Poll Places Ron Paul Firmly in First, with 25%

S_Landreth:

Good find on the Gingrich clip.

I generally don't like Republicans, but I am very positive towards Gingrich: smart, knowleable, knows the issues, even-keeled.

I am tilting towards Newt.

My question is: will the electoral vote do so?

^Personally, I don’t think so. Too many skeletons in his closet.



I don’t put much weight to which politician will endorse which candidate when I choose who to support, but some people do.

However I will question why some politicians (with a soured passed) will endorse some candidates. It will usually raise a red flag with me.

Fivethirtyeight has put together a chart/s which shows where all the contenders stand to date.

Romney Dominating Race for Endorsements

Overall, Mr. Romney has 55 percent of the Endorsement Points from Republicans who have endorsed a candidate so far. Although the pace of endorsements has remained somewhat on the sluggish side — meaning that there are plenty of governors, senators and key state officeholders who remain unaligned to a campaign — a candidate like Mr. Gingrich would have a lot of work to do if he wanted to catch up.

Interesting article: Romney Dominating Race for Endorsements - NYTimes.com