I'm not saying this should happen--it's still too early. But as I've indicated, I don't know who else the Republicans can put up successfully for president in 2012 other than Mitt Romney. If the Republicans don't field the best ticket possible under the circumstances, the party may defeat itself in 2012. (And, FTR, I don't think a viable third-party candidate is going to pop out of the woodwork onto the national stage--not this election cycle.)

Tim Pawlenty is okay, but I don't think he can pull it off. And the country has shown in the past that it likes southern governors as presidents, but I don't think Haley Barbour can pull it off, either (I do think he would be very good in a cabinet position--and he knows Washington, media relations, and party politics well).

In any event, a new political star has burst on the national scene in Scott Brown. I didn't know much about him until recent weeks, but I must say, I find his humility and straightforward, down-to-earth manner refreshing--I just hope that there are no sex scandals in his closet.

We'll see what happens leading up to the 2012 presidential election. It'll certainly be interesting.

1/20/2010 1:07:19 PM

Ahh, good old Mitt Romney, champion of the war against terror, and his 5 military-age kids who don't serve in the military.

1/20/2010 1:09:12 PM

Do you find Scott Brown's nude body refreshing?

1/20/2010 1:10:29 PM

^^ Romney is an imperfect candidate--as are all of them.



[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 1:11 PM. Reason : ^ This is a legitimate thread--please get out of here with that bullshit. ]

1/20/2010 1:10:43 PM

Scott Brown for Vice President.

1/20/2010 1:12:56 PM

^ And?

1/20/2010 1:13:21 PM

I too read the Drudge Report.



Anyway, the teabaggers will soon realize that Brown is a whole lot more liberal than they'd like.

1/20/2010 1:13:39 PM

Sounds awful. It's good that Brown won, but at the end of the day, he's still a neo-conservative, and wouldn't do anything terribly different from Bush-style Republicans. Same for Romney.

1/20/2010 1:14:00 PM

The best thing for Obama will be losing congress in 2010. He can then play the victim role, scale back his policies and win his second term. He is a VERY likeable figure/person, but people dont like his policies and he is shown he is no different and cant live up to the image he created. He can move to the center while saying he had to bc of congress. Getting more support from the middle while not losing his base.

1/20/2010 1:14:14 PM

^^ If I'm not mistaken, Brown's pro-choice. And I don't see you bitching very much at all about Obama's continuation of a number of Bush policies.

^ Yep.

Quote :

"I can't help but like Obama, but I disagree with his policies and worldview."

hooksaw

message_topic.aspx?topic=574651&page=1


[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 1:14:37 PM

I don't think it's going to matter a whole lot. After this dems lose congress in November Obama will be unable to accomplish anything. As long as the Republicans trot out an actual live human being and not Jon McCain or Newt Gingrich they'll probably take the Presidency in 2012.

1/20/2010 1:15:50 PM

lol

based on what

1/20/2010 1:16:20 PM

No. Two white guys from Massachusetts would not make a broadly enough appealing ticket for a national race and people aren't going to go for a short-term Senator again.

1/20/2010 1:17:16 PM

Base don Obamas falling poll numbers, based on my assertion that the dems losing congress (which seems likely) will effectively neuter Obama.

Look, I'm not terribly happy with it, but I think it's going to happen. Since I feel like we'll never have anyone in a major office who will do anything to significantly reduce the size and scope of the federal goverment I just pull for one party to control congress and the other the presidency. Gridlock is good.

1/20/2010 1:19:10 PM

Quote :

"And I don't see you bitching very much at all about Obama's continuation of a number of Bush policies."

Is this a joke?

1/20/2010 1:21:28 PM

Quote :

"As long as the Republicans trot out an actual live human being and not Jon McCain or Newt Gingrich they'll probably take the Presidency in 2012."

Well, I held my nose when I voted for McCain--and I don't want Gingrich. But people like divided government--or they have in the past anyway. If the Republicans don't field a very strong ticket, they could easily lose.

But I do think Congress is going back to Republican control. And, FTR, I think the North Carolina General Assembly may, too.

^ No--but which part?

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 1:22:30 PM

VP and President cannot legally be from the same state

/thread

1/20/2010 1:24:00 PM

^ Incorrect. And you've heard of moving, haven't you?

1/20/2010 1:25:36 PM

^^ Romney could just change his homestate.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ninja'd]

1/20/2010 1:27:23 PM

well yes (much like cheney did in 2000) but seriously? two guys from Massachusetts on the same ticket

1/20/2010 1:35:02 PM

^ I suggest that you check your facts more closely before you attempt to educate me. And did you read this part of the OP?

Quote :

"I'm not saying this should happen--it's still too early. But as I've indicated, I don't know who else the Republicans can put up successfully for president in 2012 other than Mitt Romney."

So, if you were picking a presidential candidate for the Republicans--that you wanted to win--who would you pick? For VP?

1/20/2010 1:39:18 PM

Quote :

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. "

I'm pretty sure this is why. If they're from the same state-then the electoral votes from that state couldn't be cast in their favor.

And I would say that Romney Jindal wouldn't be an awful ticket.

1/20/2010 1:41:55 PM

Brown is an average guy with a simple, yet clever, campaign. He defeated a witless woman that spouted self-destructive nonsense that dug her own proverbial political grave. Keep this in mind, because his competition basically handed him the election.

Not to say that he doesn't have potential to be something more, but beware of blowing hot air up your elephant skirts. The GOP needs a much stronger candidate than Brown.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 1:45 PM. Reason : -]

1/20/2010 1:43:21 PM

^^

Quote :

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. . . ."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

This is the part you should focus on--it does not mean they "cannot legally be from the same state." And a simple move to another state would render this moot.

Now, would you answer my questions please?

Quote :

"So, if you were picking a presidential candidate for the Republicans--that you wanted to win--who would you pick? For VP?"

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM. Reason : As VP? Would you call Joe Biden "strong"? ]

1/20/2010 1:46:57 PM

Palin/Bachmann

1/20/2010 1:48:56 PM

^ No. And it should be Palin-Bachmann--your way ("Palin/Bachmann"), with the slash, lists alternatives.

1/20/2010 1:51:04 PM

Make a board that has these names on it:

Cheney, Palin, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Romney, Brown, Jindall, Bachmann, Beck, Limbaugh, Huckabee, and Steele.

Throw a dart.

1/20/2010 1:55:12 PM

Quote :

"Now, would you answer my questions please?"

i did

Quote :

"And I would say that Romney Jindal wouldn't be an awful ticket."

1/20/2010 1:58:05 PM

^ Romney is your top Republican pick?

1/20/2010 2:08:07 PM

Someone needs to start a: Ask Answer Hooksaw Questions Here thread.

Quote :

"And it should be Palin-Bachmann--your way ("Palin/Bachmann"), with the slash, lists alternatives."

Hilariously petty shit like this is why no one takes you seriously man.

1/20/2010 2:10:05 PM

No i'm putting that out there to blow smoke up your ass

1/20/2010 2:11:11 PM

^^ Dude, I'm just trying to get an answer to "If not Romney, then who?" This seems to be a legit question to me--and I'm interested in the real opinions of those who would support and oppose a Republican ticket. What's so challenging?

And I don't give a shit about the other bullshit you posted. Did you object to God's "petty" FF thread?

^ Well, excuse the shit out of me. You were the one who put a after an all-Massachusetts ticket. So, I guess I had it half right then?

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 2:13:25 PM

Hooksaw, it seems like everyone has to spell things out for you, over and over again. Do you not see that? Because we do...

In all honesty, there is absolutely no one that strikes me as a formidable presidential candidate for the GOP at the moment.

You are full of petty deflections and gross misunderstandings.
V

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 2:22 PM. Reason : -]

1/20/2010 2:19:17 PM

^ Can we stick to the topic? That would be a nice change.

I don't see that you have had to spell anything out for me "over and over again." And are you a mediator of some sort?

Nice edit.





[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 2:24 PM. Reason : ^ Incorrect.]

1/20/2010 2:21:58 PM

Quote :

"Can we stick to the topic? That would be a nice change."

The quit derailing your own thread with petty MLA handbook-esque corrections and references to threads in Feedback Forum that no-one reads.


Your premise sucks, you're yet again trying to win petty points, and you're demanding people answer your questions until you get the answer you want.


And here is a newsflash: At this moment in time, 2+ years from the election, There are no strong GOP candidates . . . period.

Sarah Palin is traveling train wreck of Class I felonies in the courthouse of stupidity, Romney has solid economic credentials, but will be rejected by the Palinistas, Huckabee is a likable guy, but too folksy for a nation in serious economic crisis, Jindal botched his last chance at fame, Brown will be a 1/3 term junior Senator (where have we seen this before), McCain won't run again, Jeb Bush is a Bush, Glenn Beck cries and eats cookie dough on TV, Rush Limbaugh is a goddamned moron with way too many stupid comments on record, Bachmann is Pelosi grade crazy, Steele is possibly the most incompetent GOP Chairman in decades and the rest are too unknown to make real predictions about now.

There, are you happy you crazy fuck?

1/20/2010 2:30:15 PM

Quote :

"Cheney, Palin, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Romney, Brown, Jindall, Bachmann, Beck, Limbaugh, Huckabee, and Steele"

I'd support Ron Paul or Gary Johnson over any of those guys. I don't think they are longshots either, especially given the developments that will likely take place over the next couple of years.

1/20/2010 2:31:20 PM

^^ Shut the fuck up, you pissy little cunt. Answer my simple question or get the fuck out and stay out, goddammit.

So you don't have a top Republican pick--is that what you're saying? Yes or no. I don't give a fuck about "strong." I want your top pick--it's real simple, asshole.

^ Oh, Christ. Here we go with the Ron Paul shit again. Get it through your head: Ron Paul is NEVER going to be president!!!1 The best he can do is take votes from a Republican ticket if he ran as an independent.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 2:37:32 PM

Hey everyone answer my goddamn question so I can then ridicule your pick and belittle you. Yeah!

1/20/2010 2:45:39 PM

Hooksaw, who is your pick? You cannot seriously expect Romney-Brown to be a viable ticket...

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 2:50 PM. Reason : -]

1/20/2010 2:49:21 PM

Esteemed Mr hooksaw

Quote :

"I don't give a fuck about "strong.""

Quote :

" I want your top pick"

Quote :

"Get it through your head: Ron Paul is NEVER going to be president!!!"

You can't go three sentences without contradicting yourself.


Again, "you crazy fuck"

your friend,
JCASHFAN

1/20/2010 2:49:54 PM

Quote :

"And it should be Palin-Bachmann--your way ("Palin/Bachmann"), with the slash, lists alternatives."

Haha you are such a goober.

1/20/2010 2:56:55 PM

^^ He listed two candidates--he didn't indicate the top pick.

^ Thanks, OopsPoofers. Good info.

FWIW, I had no intention of ridiculing or belittling anyone--and my OP was not inflammatory in the slightest. I wanted nothing more than civil discussion and responses to simple questions that are completely rational and legitimate.

Some of you are intentionally trying to derail this thread--as you always do with my threads. So what's new?

The question:

Quote :

"So, if you were picking a presidential candidate for the Republicans--that you wanted to win--who would you pick? For VP?"

So far, LunaK is the only one who has answered.

Perhaps this template will help:

My top Republican pick for president is: ___________________________

My top Republican pick for VP is: ___________________________

My reasons for these picks are (optional if too confusing): __________________________

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 3:04 PM. Reason : Do that help?]

1/20/2010 3:02:48 PM

Quote :

"Do that help?"

Where was your MLA handbook on that one?

1/20/2010 3:06:54 PM

it really doesn't matter. more of the same.

1/20/2010 3:10:36 PM

Quote :

"The question: 'So, if you were picking a presidential candidate for the Republicans--that you wanted to win--who would you pick? For VP?' So far, LunaK is the only one who has answered. Perhaps this template will help: My top Republican pick for president is: ___________________________ My top Republican pick for VP is: ___________________________ My reasons for these picks are (optional if too confusing): __________________________"

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 3:12 PM. Reason : Does that help?]

1/20/2010 3:11:20 PM

^^^ Ah yes, a taste of your own medicine.

The differences between Hooksaw and GrumpyGOP are vast and unmistakable. I suggest you read more of his posts, as I believe he represents the GOP of the future, simply because he listens first.

Again, we have to spell things out for you. Except now, literally, you are asking us to fill in your blanks. This should shed some light on our impression of you Hooksaw and yet you are completely aloof, even now. Don't you get it? There are no good candidates to fill in your blanks. I could list someone, but what's the point? They are not worthy to begin with, you are grasping at straws again.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM. Reason : -]

1/20/2010 3:14:05 PM

Quote :

"For VP?"

That's not a sentence. You should really have a subject and a verb to have a complete and correct sentence.

1/20/2010 3:14:44 PM

^^ I'm not a Republican--never have been. Don't make assumptions.

^ The omitted words at issue are in ellipsis.

Quote :

"The question: 'So, if you were picking a presidential candidate for the Republicans--that you wanted to win--who would you pick? For VP?' So far, LunaK is the only one who has answered. Perhaps this template will help: My top Republican pick for president is: ___________________________ My top Republican pick for VP is: ___________________________ My reasons for these picks are (optional if too confusing): __________________________"

Does that help?

PS:

Quote :

"I too read the Drudge Report."

Boone

FTR, I don't read Drudge--I honestly would tell you if I did. Why wouldn't I? Do I appear to be concerned about what you think of me?

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 3:19:46 PM

So, I've given this some more thought, though I'm not sure why. Aside from the fact that running a perceived moderate (Romney) with a guy that could pass as a Democrat in the South (Brown) would excite no-one on the base and be simply a boring ticket nationally, which one of the candidates does the OP propose should move? Brown cannot move and retain his senate seat, and why would a Presidential candidate move simply so he can have a lukewarm VP option? Does not compute.


The Brown sheen will wear off quickly though, when he starts voting like the Massachusetts Democrat that he is.

1/20/2010 3:54:43 PM

Quote :

"I'd support Ron Paul or Gary Johnson over any of those guys. I don't think they are longshots either, especially given the developments that will likely take place over the next couple of years."

I'm more sympathetic of Johnson than Paul since he focuses on the removal of social controls as opposed to bizzare obsessions with monetary policies accepted by no one except, well, Ron Paul fans. From what I've read about him, he isn't as hostile to the social safety net. Johnson would limit it to the truly needy like he did in NM, Paul was an Ayn Rand fan and that automatically raises red flags, just as it does for me with anyone (so don't think I'm just targeting you here).

Also, Johnson doesn't have a campaign structure consisting of racists and neo-confederates like Ron Paul. Even without that fact, I have to ask, why did Ron Paul run such a piss-poor campaign even with all that money he made? And why are so many people like the founder of Stormfront or the League of the South drawn to him but not the Libertarian Party proper? If "classical liberals" want a good candidate, why not stay away from the crazies? I'd consider someone in the style of Hayek were they to ever run.

Meanwhile, the LP is running the definition of sleaze in Wayne Allen Root. Can I write in Gregory Peck?

1/20/2010 4:27:43 PM