Who will take on Obama in 2012?

I'm not crazy for any of the Republican candidates, but right now all of the Republican wannabes have a long time to find the hook that will lift one of them out of the crowd while Obama and his administration are still braiding enough rope to figuratively hang him and other Democrat candidates at the polls.

Even if the Republicans blow the presidential contest and Obama wins it on oratory and charm, his coattails are apt to be short to non-existant this time around, while the Republicans take more of the House and Senate. I'd settle for a Republican Senate with the votes of challenge a presidential veto.

The Obama controversy on Israel has petered out as he emphasized land swaps as part of the equation and explicitly stated Israel is a Jewish state. The previous labor government also accepted land swaps.

It is not clear what is going to happen with the economy, rufnek, but it still looks like it will most likely be better, not worse, but how much better will be the issue. And Obama's energy approach on off shore drilling has nothing to do with prices at the moment. If he eliminated all restrictions overnight, prices would remain high for years and it is doubtful it would make much of a difference even long term as local drilling wouldn't change the tremendous global demand for oil.

I tried to figure out what the Pawlenty Medicare proposal will be, but the hints are so vague I have no idea. It definitely sounds like it isn't The Ryan Plan. So he is probably playing the political game, praising Ryan while coming up with something only mildly different than the current program, more options apparently. If the Ryan Plan was like that Republicans wouldn't be in such trouble.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Originally Posted by will.15
. . . because negative campaigns (America is in trouble with the inference we need radical changes) has never been a winning strategy.
Maybe. But people still talk about how the Lyndon Johnson ad of the little girl picking flowers with an atomic missile countdown in the background blew Goldwater out of the running. And that ad was pulled after only a few showings.

Negative campaigns agains candidates work, not when it is a negative campagn about America. Pawlenty's approach is different from Romney. Look at his video.
"I can fix it, it won't be easy, but I can do it," but nothing like Pawlenty's talk about hard decisons, sacrifices, and specific mention of cutting entitlement programs.

Pawlenty's video is almost just like that. "We need a President who understands our problems are deep, and who has the courage to face them. President Obama doesn't; I do."

Ten seconds later:

"I believe with all my heart that the challenges we face can be overcome."

That sounds exactly like a negative campaign against a candidate, but not against America.

I really don't think it matters. If Obama runs again, he'll get re-elected.

Thanks for saving us all that trouble.

What do you mean, if he runs again?

has a sitting president ever bailed after 1 term?

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

Yes, one guy did.

I guess we all forgot about Huntsman who may get in it. I know nothing about him.

I just looked at clips of that guy. Wouldn't count him out at all. I think he has a lot more potential than Pawlenty. Good looking, articulate charismatic guy. Maybe too nice? We'll see. I think that is the guy to watch if Romney fades.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...74J5VI20110520

Watch this guy. If he gets in, he will skip Iowa and concentrate on New Hamspshire. If he does well there, even if he comes in second to Romney, he could catch fire. He is like a more appealing Romney. I think Tim Pawlenty is a big question mark as the anti Romney. But does this one have the fire in his belly? He has a lot of catching up to do, but in this race with these candidates I think he has a decent shot of pulling an upset.

I don't see how he gets past the fact that he was Obama's ambassador to China. That irks a lot of conservatives. I suppose it'd be foolish to discount him completely at this stage, but I think that's going to be a big problem for him.

That's the problem with conservatives, having a problem with someone who can work with people from the other side of the aisle.He could be a major headache for Obama if he got the nomination. He was Ambassador to China, not his Secretary of State, and I am not aware of conservatives having a serious disagreements with Obama's dealings with China. His support of civil marriages for gays will be a bigger problem, but Romney has health care as his achilles heel, and Pawlenty looks like the Republicans' Michael Dukakis. They cannot win with him if they nominate him.

It's not a problem with conservatives, it's a problem with primary voters and party activists of all stripes: they all demand ideological purity every time we do this. They just don't often get their way.

One completely unsupported statement deserves another, so: sure they can.

That kind of candidate never wins when they are going against a candidate who is photogenic and a good speaker. He is not a good speaker, he is not photogenic, and he is going against a sitting President who is photogenic and a good speaker. Huntsman looks like a President and appears to be a better speaker than Pawlenty. But he is still a big question mark in many areas. If McCain could get the Republican nomination with all his negatives (a lot of conservatives hated him) it is hard to rule out someone who has the potential to be the Republican Obama, someone who catches fire because of his personable qualities. I am not saying he will at this point. His message is unclear and he is still an unknown, but New Hampshire likes to pick the longshots.

Huntsman if he gets the nod will have enormous appeal with Independents and being Ambassador to China will be a big plus. He looks bipartisan, he is fiscally conservative, and could give Obama real trouble in the swing states. Pawlenty is just another lackluster Republican. I think Romney if he gets the nomination will be more trouble for Obama than Pawlenty. His trouble is getting the nomination.

Pawlenty's a perfectly adequate speaker, and he's going to spend the next 6-8 months practicing. But if the bulk of your reasoning is that he can't win simply because he's not handsome enough, or not enough of a public speaker, then there's not much more to say on this topic. That's a pretty simplistic reason to dismiss a candidacy, and it seems more than a little at odds with the early suggestions (which I've generally agreed with) that the economy would be paramount.

I'd also note the dramatic difference between saying something probably won't happen, and saying it can't. The latter is almost always bluster, and I think politics has enough of that without the people merely discussing it joining in. Besides, the position of MoFo Who States Every Opinion Like It's A Fact has already been filled by Gunny.

It may seem simplistic, but that is how it goes. If the ecconomy is actually worse than it is now, unlikely, than any Republican has the potential of beating Obama, even a snooze like Pawlenty. If we get a major event turner that would matter also. But as it now stands Republicans don't beat Obama with an adequate speaker (Dukakis was adequate and technically better than Pawlenty) and practicing when you are not a natural only gets you so far. Your party needs a little sizzle and Huntsman looks like the only one with the potential to provde it. I could potentially vote for Huntsman. I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Pawlenty. It may be frustrating and seem superficial that these things matter so much, style over substance, but it does.

Well heck, "how it goes" based on what? One example? Two? Even if we could accurately say that a candidate today is perfectly analogous to a past candidate (which is never true), that'd still leave the issue of sample size. People talk about Presidential history like it's some massive body of information to be gleaned from, but it's actually a staggeringly small number of data points that often bear no meaningful relation to one another.

Anyway, I think campaigns turn on far, far more things than that, but if you think it's that simple, so be it. Mark me down as part of the "reality is way, way more complicated than that" camp.

Why would you consider voting for Huntsman? I've never gotten the impression from any of your posts that you were anything other than a firm Democrat, albeit one who doesn't think highly of politicians in general.

I'm for fiscal conservatism, but not for the typical Republican brand of cut taxes a lot more, gut social programs, and increase defense spending, and support pork projects at home, which is what you get from Republicans. We need someone who can w really be bipartisan and try to find solutions that both parties can live with. Does such a candidate exist? Probably not with the existing political process. Huntsman at this point is a blank slate and at this point probably will disappoint more we see of him, but at the moment there is the potential for him to be what Obama and George W. promised and couldn't deliver, be bipartisan. I like how Huntsman is so far taking a different approach, not attacking Obama but I assume will emphasize his disagreements on domestic policy. He isn't Romney whose opinions seem based on what he thinks he needs to win. Huntsman has said he would not have gotten involved in Libya, which is interesting because politically it doesn't help him because at this point our involvement is not controversial and potentially could cost him votes among Republicans. He appears to be a real person despite the poster boy looks unlike poll driven Romney. At least Romney in his commercials isn't afraid to speak plainly to voters straight up. But Pawlenty's commercials are all slicked up over produced cliches with red, white, and blue and his monotone delivery.

Say what? The last Republican nominee for President was probably as virulently anti-pork as any politician in modern history. There is, of course, pork all over, but I don't think it's even remotely arguable that most anti-pork crusaders are Republicans, and that they support fewer of the large government programs and bills that attract pork to begin with, which is just as important.

As I mentioned before, Pawlenty's first campaign stop was to go to Iowa to rail on ethanol subsides, followed by a trip to Florida to talk about reforming Social Security. Straight talker doesn't get any straighter than that. Heck, you were railing on him just yesterday for talking about tough decisions and hardships, which is pretty much in direct contradiction with what you're accusing him of now.

You say "commercials," plural, but you're referring to just the one I posted, right? Because I'm pretty sure that's not even technically a commercial, just an online video announcement.

Also...you're using the fact that he uses red, white, and blue in his video as a criticism? Really?

Moreover, you were talking about what you support on a policy level, but the only negatives you've offered about Pawlenty have to do with perception or style.

Most anti pork crusaders are not Republicans. That is bipartisan. Both parties have them. But both parties pork. With Republicans they are more hypocrites because they make such a big deal about government waste. Harry Reed is at least consistent.

The ethanol subsidy comment is interesting. But otherwise we have no specifics from Pawlenty about much else except vague talks about reforming Medicare and Social Security. Talking about reform isn't controversial. Specific proposals is something else. Right now he is doing the usual political talk.

Maybe you didn't notice it, but I expressly said earlier I saw a previous Pawlenty video before the one you posted and it was the same thing, lots of video clips, his monotone saying nothing, and flag waving. And those are commercials really. They are formatted like commercials. I don't know if that is going to be his standard ads, but that stuff does not personally impress me at all. I actually don't like it. It is very cynically done.

You asked me what I liked about Huntsman, not what I disliked about Pawlenty. I can't criticize him much about substance because there isn't much there yet on specifics. But I sure don't like his commercials (both of them).