2012 Republican Presidential candidates

lilpup · April-25-11, 09:04 PM

Can't you just wait to hear Trump's view on struggling urban areas, esp. Detroit?

**maxx** · April-25-11, 09:19 PM

I like Lewis Black's quip that Trump would sell off the U.S. to the Chinese before they realized it was broken.

**vetalalumni** · May-03-11, 03:13 PM

Tim Pawlenty and Ron Paul will participate in the first debate of the 2012 Republican presidential primary contest this Thursday in South Carolina.

South Carolina presidential debate still on, with or without candidates by Matea Gold, Los Angeles Times [[May 3, 2011)

The first debate of the 2012 Republican presidential primary contest appears set to go forward Thursday – even if there is just one major candidate on stage.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is the only top-tier candidate expected to participate in the forum at the Peace Center in Greenville, S.C.

Fox News, which is producing the debate with the South Carolina Republican Party, said the other anticipated participants are former Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, restaurant executive Herman Cain and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.

Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, who was originally expected to be included, will not meet Fox News’ requirement of garnering at least 1% in the most five recent national polls, said Michael Clemente, senior vice president of news for the cable news channel.

Other Republicans considered likely or possible contenders in 2012 have opted not to participate, including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Ambassador Jon Huntsman, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

"Our job is not to marshal the field but to ask the tough questions of those who do get in the race," Clemente said in a statement. "This is the first of our five debates, and I'm sure we'll be able to kick-start the conversation about who will be the next president of the United States."

Fox News laid out strict criteria to qualify for the debate, including requiring candidates to register exploratory committees or have announced a formal presidential campaign, to file all necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission and to pay all federal and South Carolina filing fees.

That amounts to $25,000 per candidate in South Carolina, due to the party by 5 p.m. Tuesday. It's unclear who, if anyone, has yet paid. Party spokesman Joel Sawyer declined to say, adding that the information would be released Wednesday.

And as of midday Tuesday, neither Santorum or Cain had registered an exploratory committee or filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission. Clemente said he expected both to do so by the end of the day.

The debate is set to air at 6 p.m. PT/ 9 p.m. ET on Fox News Thursday.

Though candidates are cool to the event, state party activists are not. The South Carolina GOP says that the event is "at capacity."

**vetalalumni** · May-05-11, 06:28 PM

Paul the senior earlier today said he will not change. “So much of my record is already out on the table,” and “I am just going to restate what I have been stating for 30 years.”

At the debate it would be interesting to hear Paul address some of the following:

[[he is OK with) big oil profits
oil subsidies
domestic shrimp industry protection
Boeing plant deal
would he have gone after OBL

Watch the debate on-line at Thursday, 9p ET. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-ne...tes/index.html

**oladub** · May-05-11, 06:47 PM

vetalalumni, Ron Paul has raised $726,000 so far today. Associated Press is refusing to cover, to report, the debate.

**vetalalumni** · May-06-11, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

vetalalumni, Ron Paul has raised $726,000 so far today. Associated Press is refusing to cover, to report, the debate.

Impressive financial support.

Will Paul attempt to widen his general appeal?

Paul did fair relative to the other four candidates. The exasperated pleading has a short shelf-life unlikely to win the future.

**Big Dog** · May-06-11, 05:44 PM

Ron Paul was the best at the debate. Fox news was kissing Santorum ass afterwards, and gave him lot of air time. Slantorum follows the Fux Mantra, to a tee.

**vetalalumni** · May-07-11, 02:13 PM

Sarah Palin - maybe her instincts will help garner the support that her breadth of knowledge has failed to do.

Palin's Foreign Policy Embraces Instinct, Shuns Doctrine By Scott Conroy, RealClearPolitics.

In a speech at Colorado Christian College earlier this week, Sarah Palin laid out a five-point set of standards by which the United States should commit its troops to military action.

Bearing the palpable influence of her new foreign policy adviser -- Peter Schweizer, a scholar at the conservative Hoover Institution who has been on SarahPAC's payroll for less than three weeks -- Palin's criteria for military action seemed at first glance to be less aggressive than the hawkish foreign policy she has consistently espoused.

As recently as February, Palin had been among the first prominent Republicans calling for a no-fly zone over Libya. She trumpeted the neoconservative leanings of her longtime foreign policy advisers, Randy Scheunemann and Michael Goldfarb, in justifying her call for military action against Muammar Gaddafi's forces: "We should not be afraid of freedom," she declared, "especially when it comes to people suffering under a brutal enemy of America."

But in Colorado on Monday, Palin declared flatly, "We should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period."

contd...

**Crumbled_pavement** · May-09-11, 07:33 PM

Newt is official. Please, can we get a round of applause.

**Papasito** · May-10-11, 07:27 AM

It doesn't matter who the Republicans pick. Whoever it ends up being will be the sworn enemy of all that is Obama, and there will be no mercy in the crosshairs. If it's Gingrich, he will have all his dirt pulled out of the closet. If it's Trump, all his divorces and questionable business deals will be brought front and center. If it's anyone else, they will be proclaimed the worst threat to American freedom in a generation,and they are "going to take away Grandma's social security and Grandma's medicare".

It's the same old crap every 4 years.

The only difference about 2012 is that one guy spends trillions of dollars the country doesn't have, and the other guy is going to make tons of promises about fixing the debt and deficit and play to the conservative base, then not fulfill the promises.

Oh, the talk show hosts will howl, rave and rant. People will get fired up. Everyone will think they are "involved". People will turn out and vote. And inevitably, the "Electoral College" will choose the President they fold in favor of. The sheeple will be ruled another 4 years by either the same or another dirty politician.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-10-11, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

It's the same old crap every 4 years.

The only difference about 2012 is that one guy spends trillions of dollars the country doesn't have, and the other guy is going to make tons of promises about fixing the debt and deficit and play to the conservative base, then not fulfill the promises.

Oh, the talk show hosts will howl, rave and rant. People will get fired up. Everyone will think they are "involved". People will turn out and vote. And inevitably, the "Electoral College" will choose the President they fold in favor of. The sheeple will be ruled another 4 years by either the same or another dirty politician.

If you're so irreconcilably jaded, why do you even bother posting on politically-oriented threads?

Get outside and do something that makes you happy. Put a smile on your face. Life ain't so bad.

**Big Dog** · May-10-11, 08:38 AM

Trolling, may not be easy to give up.

**oladub** · May-10-11, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

... inevitably, the "Electoral College" will choose the President they fold in favor of. The sheeple will be ruled another 4 years by either the same or another dirty politician.

The electoral college might give the election a twist one way or another but it will be along still agreed upon guidelines. I see a lot of the choosing being done by the elite and the media they own. They effectively pre-select the final presidential choices we are left to vote for. That way it doesn't matter who we vote for where the elite is concerned. Either way, NAFTA continues, the borders are left open for a supply of cheap labor, bankers are bailed out, corporations are subsidized, and we war in oil laden places. The elite really don't care much about abortion, gay marriage and some other divisive issues and such issues provide things for the rest of us to argue about so we don't get too focused on the economic issues the elite care more about.

**vetalalumni** · May-10-11, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

...

I see a lot of the choosing being done by the elite and the media they own. They effectively pre-select the final presidential choices we are left to vote for. That way it doesn't matter who we vote for where the elite is concerned.

...

Does your opinion explain, in part, the difficulty Rand Paul has with voters? Did the media choose not to pre-select Paul favorably during last Thursday's GOP debate?

**ghettopalmetto** · May-10-11, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

The electoral college might give the election a twist one way or another but it will be along still agreed upon guidelines.

There have been some bizarre statements made on these forums over the years, but this one is right near the top. Please explain.

**oladub** · May-10-11, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by vetalalumni

Does your opinion explain, in part, the difficulty Rand Paul has with voters? Did the media choose not to pre-select Paul favorably during last Thursday's GOP debate?

You probably mean Ron rather than Rand. That would be a partial explanation. The press has distorted, issued coordinated falsehoods the night before key primaries, and devised reasons to keep Ron from participating in key debates while allowing other candidates, like Giuliani, with less support to participate. I think a far greater reason is that while Ron Paul does great among INTJ's and one other geekier personality type, he fails to click with whatever more prevalent personality types dominate Oprah, American Idol, and WWF audiences who seem to look for breezier explanations that feel right about how to fix the country.

This time around, I think age will be a bigger issue too with Ron. I don't think he can win but his comments about the wars, torture, and Republican spending will keep the others off stride.

ghettopalmetto
Originally Posted by oladub
"The electoral college might give the election a twist one way or another but it will be along still agreed upon guidelines".
There have been some bizarre statements made on these forums over the years, but this one is right near the top. Please explain.

I was neither supporting nor opposing the electoral college. It sometimes effects the results of elections. It exists because it is a Constitutional requirement. An amendment could remove it from the Constitution. My point was that the elite have more to do with who gets elected as president than does the electoral college because the elite have already vetted who is running and the elite win no matter which candidate wins the election, with or without the electoral college's spin, because the elite already pre-selected the candidates.

**Pam** · May-10-11, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

Newt is official. Please, can we get a round of applause.

No..........

**Big Dog** · May-10-11, 05:04 PM

Oladub, after reading your post #88, I think you might start looking for another country, in which to live. This is the way it is.

**maxx** · May-10-11, 07:39 PM

Oooh, Nooo. The Republicans have finally taken their crazy too far and now some are backpedaling like crazy trying to distance themselves from the Medicare-icides.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...split-widening

**Big Dog** · May-10-11, 08:44 PM

I'm thinking the repubs, are going to take a bath in 2012.

**oladub** · May-10-11, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Big Dog

Oladub, after reading your post #88, I think you might start looking for another country, in which to live. This is the way it is.

Nope, not interested, but will work patiently against corruption and nepotism found at the top of both the Republican and Democratic parties. It is that way only to the extent the majority allow it to be so. People get the governments they deserve. I see that Dennis Kucinich's seat is being eliminated. I don't always agree with the guy but I don't think he is on the take. Republicans, under Gingrich tried to eliminate Ron Paul's district too. I don't take that to be coincidence. Ralph Nader has been made an enemy of the Democratic party and ridiculed by top Democrats for supporting things that most Democrats want.They are trouble makers from the standpoint of autocratic elites. Watch what they will try to do to Rand Paul for refusing to go along. Jesse Ventura did leave the country but says he would come back to run for VP under Ron Paul if Ron Paul runs as an independent. None of those guys see eye to eye with their party leaders who are beholden to their financiers.

**maxx** · May-11-11, 09:16 AM

None of those guys see eye to eye with their party leaders who are beholden to their financiers.

And therein lies the answer. Get big money out of our elections.

**vetalalumni** · May-11-11, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

You probably mean Ron rather than Rand. That would be a partial explanation. The press has distorted, issued coordinated falsehoods the night before key primaries, and devised reasons to keep Ron from participating in key debates while allowing other candidates, like Giuliani, with less support to participate. I think a far greater reason is that while Ron Paul does great among INTJ's and one other geekier personality type, he fails to click with whatever more prevalent personality types dominate Oprah, American Idol, and WWF audiences who seem to look for breezier explanations that feel right about how to fix the country.

...

Yep Ron - thanks. The sensibilities of the entertainment set [[Oprah, American Idol, and WWF audiences) are very significant reasons for the difficulty Ron Paul has with voters?

Originally Posted by oladub

...

This time around, I think age will be a bigger issue too with Ron. I don't think he can win but his comments about the wars, torture, and Republican spending will keep the others off stride.

...

Why is it worthwhile for Ron Paul to "keep the others off stride"? isn't that terribly cynical?

**rb336** · May-12-11, 10:30 AM

This made my evening -

last night on the late show, dave mentioned that Newt Gingrich was officially running for president. The audience response - complete silence. Dave looked a bit taken aback by that.

**oladub** · May-12-11, 11:39 AM

vetalalumni: Yep Ron - thanks. The sensibilities of the entertainment set [[Oprah, American Idol, and WWF audiences) are very significant reasons for the difficulty Ron Paul has with voters?

No, I was referring to Myers-Briggs personality types as being a determining factor. Simply put, there are many more people found in some personality types than others. While INTJ's, for instance, have a preference for Ron Paul, they only represent about 2% of the population. Other more emotive personality types I suspect populate Oprah's audience. They don't seem to be attracted to the Pauls' message. It isn't that the sensibilities of the entertainers so much as the milieu provided by them. When someone pointed out, during the 2008 campaign how two very small personality types were very attracted to Ron Paul but the rest weren't, that I realized he had no chance of catching on.

Why is it worthwhile for Ron Paul to "keep the others off stride"? isn't that terribly cynical?

In the 2008 debates, Ron Paul said, "Just bring them home" and, to Huckabee, how many American troops will you allow to be killed for your sense of honor'? Paul didn't let the others' say nutty things and get away with it.

Already, in the first debate, when asked to raise hands if they supported "enhanced interrogation techniques", Cain, Pawlenty, and Santorum raised their hands while Paul and Johnson did not. Then there was the question asked of Paul about how he expected the support of South Carolinians for allowing gay marriage, heroin, and prostitution. In his own way, he pretty well answered the question from a traditional Republican perspective reminding the audience that the freedoms they take from others could be their own. The social conservative audience went from laughing at him to laughing with him.
Ron Paul Asked About Heroin Legalization 2012 Republican Debate 2min35sec

I think that largely due to his presence in the 2008 campaign, some of his ideas have been picked up by elements of the tea party and even mainstream Republicans. Santorum, for instance, mentioned the Constitution a couple of times when it suited him. His questioning of the Federal Reserve has brought that organization under greater scrutiny. It's a start anyway.