Newsflash: George W. Bush can not run for president in 2012.

[Gatekeeper]

I wish Barney Fife was still alive, we could have nominated him, at least there would be an improvement to look forward to.

 

[tommywho70x]

Cheney/Barbour 2012

unless we are talking a different cheney, that's nuts. he's too old.

unless they pull a rabbit from somewhere, i think you'll be seeing rick perry on the ticket.

i also think that we've seen the last of sarah palin running for anything. she seems to have found her niche along with the likes of michelle malkin and ann coulter cheerleading.

 

[Avatar4321]

Dumber/Dumberer 2012....

We already know Obama and Biden will run for reelection.

It's the Republicans we don't know about.

 

[VaYank5150]

Dumber/Dumberer 2012....

We already know Obama and Biden will run for reelection.

It's the Republicans we don't know about.

Actually, anyone who knows anything about Americans politics knows the Republicans won't be running for reelection in 2012.

 

[tommywho70x]

Dumber/Dumberer 2012....

We already know Obama and Biden will run for reelection.

It's the Republicans we don't know about.

Actually, anyone who knows anything about Americans politics knows the Republicans won't be running for reelection in 2012.

duh!

so who have they got? i have only seen newt gingrich and rick perry being suggested as candidates. neither one is likely to get any support from me.

 

[rightwinger]

We already know Obama and Biden will run for reelection.

It's the Republicans we don't know about.

Actually, anyone who knows anything about Americans politics knows the Republicans won't be running for reelection in 2012.

duh!

so who have they got? i have only seen newt gingrich and rick perry being suggested as candidates. neither one is likely to get any support from me.

I'd like to see who we are supposed to get enthusiastic about

 

[Sheldon]

I don't think Sarah Palin will be on the ticket, because she can't really draw from the middle.

Rick Perry? Possible, I guess.

Pawlenty? Who? My state governor. He's a moderate Republican that's been sliding right as 2012 come closer and who hasn't given a Shermanesque "no", not yet.

Gingrich? Meh. He reeks of the inner circle of politics, and I think voters might be looking for fresh blood. Or... maybe not. If the current presidency collapses in the upcoming years, then maybe peeps will want to go back to someone with an extensive Washington resume.

But I think the most likely ticket will probably come out of left field, like Palin, someone who is unfamiliar but charismatic.

 

[Yurt]

it cracks me up the obsession the left has over sarah palin...you guys act like she is the only person who speaks for the right, as if it is a forgone conclusion she wins the primary...

i lean towards the right and i do not support her...at this time during bush's last term, barely anyone thought obama had a remote chance

stop being party hacks for once

 

[bucs90]

Bush is who the republican party is now.

Its the same level of people being put forward by the right.

Do you really think Palin is better than Bush?

I thought you people said the Tea Party was the Rep party now? That the Tea Party was eating the GOP alive. But Bush and the Tea Party are very different in philosophy. So, which is it?

Is Palin better than Bush? I don't know, she has never been president. But she did great in her two previous jobs as an executive, as a mayor and governor. Obama? Well, he's never been an executive until now.

I know she would be better than Obama. Probably would be better than Bush if she picked a VP that had military expertise.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The Republicans are still running against Carter. And Republicans three generations from now will continue to run against 0bama. It is the way.

I do love how the Democrats are still running against Bush's extravagant, wasteful and out of control spending and deficits. 0bama is to them the example of of financial probity.

 

[bucs90]

Day after day reading these threads, I'm constantly seeing critiques of our president met with "But what about Bush" or "Where were you for 8 years under Bush". Then, when someone on the right or a Tea Party supporter suggests we vote in someone more fiscally responsible, more competent, or just simply more transparent than our current politicians, we are met with "Oh you mean like Bush/Cheney/Haliburton/Evil Empire I hate 'em so much".

Seeing our liberal friends obviously have little knowledge of federal laws (see immigration debate, Sestak job offer, etc), I thought maybe I should just fill them in.

To all the lefties: George W. Bush cannot run for president in 2012. He's not allowed to by law. Presidents are limited to 2 terms. FDR's socialist/borderline communist actions scared Americans so much, that afterwards they passed the law limiting 2 terms to avoid dictatorship should someone like him come along again (Which it has, under Obama).

So, from now on, when we say we want someone better, we aren't talking about Bush. We are talking about someone better than Bush, and FAR better than Obama. Mmmkay?

When we say we want fiscal responsibility, a secure border, smart diplomacy with aggressive terrorists or terror sponsoring nations, common sense entitlement programs...........we are talking about someone better than Bush, and FAR better than Obama to bring that. Mmmkay?

So, just to review:

1. George W. Bush cannot run in 2012.
2. We all want someone better than Bush.
3. We want someone far far better than Obama (you obviously do not).

So, back to the debate guys. I hope I cleared up that issue for the left. Bush is gone. And he can't run again. We aren't talking about electing Bush again. And no, not even "Bush's failed policies of the past 8 years!!!". No, we want better than that. We want someone extremely better than Obama. Maybe you will too.

OK

Fair enough. We will only look forward then. So we are no longer talking about Bush/Cheney but the Republican Party as a whole. Is there anything in the recent record of the GOP showing that they will be spending responsibly?
Does their 8 years from 2001-2009 not count at all in determining their future fiscal responsibility?

Its great to see you want someone far, far better than Obama. If thats the case, I will vote for him too. But we are a little over two years away from the election, would you be able to identify who that person might be or whose candidacy you would support?

I wanted Romney than and still do. In an economic mess, you elect an economics expert, which he is. He would need a military type VP. Romney/Powell would be an amazing ticket in my opinion.

Lately? Well, the GOP opposed the massive healthcare spending bill. Political move? Probably, but they made it. Lately they've done nothing more than call for less spending, which is all I'd hope for right now. We are in an awfully bad situation and spending must slow down.

The GOP's 01-09 spending is noted, although the left had the Congress from 06-09, right? And, noting the GOP's past, Bill Clinton had a GOP Congress for his entire term, and together they did a pretty good job economically. Clinton was a politician first, progressive second. Obama is the opposite, and thats the problem.

So, who would I support? Romney/Powell would be my dream ticket honestly.If Palin were to run, the absolute rabid nature of the left wing media would take our country into an area of disgust that I really would rather just avoid that altogether.

Romney is a mormon, and that supposedly is his political weak spot, but it doesn't matter to me. And yes, he passed universal healthcare in Mass and it has been a failure. Thus, when his opponents come after him for that, he runs on the "I've learned from the mistake" platform, which is a strong contrast to Obama's percieved arrogance. In my opinion, that would be a brilliant move by Romney to use the failed Mass healthcare plan as a way to come across as modest and willing to listen and learn from the citizens.

 

[bucs90]

Damned right, Clinton did it. A job market so good, that they took off the penalties for working to get more workers into the market. The longest sustained economic boom in the history of this nation. A semi-balanced budget.

Do you really want to compare a very successful Presidentcy with the two terms of Bush? Because, if you do, let's put it on National TV.

Clinton had a GOP Congress nearly his entire term. Without Congress, a president has no power. Clinton and the GOP worked together for that economic boom.

But then again, Clinton was a politican first. Obama is an socialist first, politician second. Thats why he's failing. Everything in this nation is slowly getting worse. The "failed policies of the last 8 years" obviously haven't been fixed, as our nation has never been this divided, or in this much crisis, in a long time.

 

[bucs90]

Damned right, Clinton did it. A job market so good, that they took off the penalties for working to get more workers into the market. The longest sustained economic boom in the history of this nation. A semi-balanced budget.

Do you really want to compare a very successful Presidentcy with the two terms of Bush? Because, if you do, let's put it on National TV.

Yeah. The last four years is when he accomplished everything.

The last four years with a Rep Congress. He couldn't do shit with the Dems who were in power when he took the presidency.

He and that Rep Congress did do a lot.


Barry Boy and the Dems are now in the process of rolling back Welfare reform. Just what we need. More people for the taxpayers to support.

An well. He does want us to be like Europe doncha know.

Got proof? What SPECIFICALLY did the Republican controlled Congress do to help Clinton "accomplish everything"?

Seriously? A prez can't do shit without a Congress. Thats why we aren't a dictatorship....yet.

 

[bucs90]

Dumber/Dumberer 2012....

We already know Obama and Biden will run for reelection.

It's the Republicans we don't know about.

Actually, anyone who knows anything about Americans politics knows the Republicans won't be running for reelection in 2012.

If the Obama, Pelosi, Soros, Van Jones posse had their way, there wouldn't be an election in 2012.

I bet you lefties would accept living under a dictatorship so long as the dictator was a left winger, wouldn't you?

 

[rightwinger]

Day after day reading these threads, I'm constantly seeing critiques of our president met with "But what about Bush" or "Where were you for 8 years under Bush". Then, when someone on the right or a Tea Party supporter suggests we vote in someone more fiscally responsible, more competent, or just simply more transparent than our current politicians, we are met with "Oh you mean like Bush/Cheney/Haliburton/Evil Empire I hate 'em so much".

Seeing our liberal friends obviously have little knowledge of federal laws (see immigration debate, Sestak job offer, etc), I thought maybe I should just fill them in.

To all the lefties: George W. Bush cannot run for president in 2012. He's not allowed to by law. Presidents are limited to 2 terms. FDR's socialist/borderline communist actions scared Americans so much, that afterwards they passed the law limiting 2 terms to avoid dictatorship should someone like him come along again (Which it has, under Obama).

So, from now on, when we say we want someone better, we aren't talking about Bush. We are talking about someone better than Bush, and FAR better than Obama. Mmmkay?

When we say we want fiscal responsibility, a secure border, smart diplomacy with aggressive terrorists or terror sponsoring nations, common sense entitlement programs...........we are talking about someone better than Bush, and FAR better than Obama to bring that. Mmmkay?

So, just to review:

1. George W. Bush cannot run in 2012.
2. We all want someone better than Bush.
3. We want someone far far better than Obama (you obviously do not).

So, back to the debate guys. I hope I cleared up that issue for the left. Bush is gone. And he can't run again. We aren't talking about electing Bush again. And no, not even "Bush's failed policies of the past 8 years!!!". No, we want better than that. We want someone extremely better than Obama. Maybe you will too.

OK

Fair enough. We will only look forward then. So we are no longer talking about Bush/Cheney but the Republican Party as a whole. Is there anything in the recent record of the GOP showing that they will be spending responsibly?
Does their 8 years from 2001-2009 not count at all in determining their future fiscal responsibility?

Its great to see you want someone far, far better than Obama. If thats the case, I will vote for him too. But we are a little over two years away from the election, would you be able to identify who that person might be or whose candidacy you would support?

I wanted Romney than and still do. In an economic mess, you elect an economics expert, which he is. He would need a military type VP. Romney/Powell would be an amazing ticket in my opinion.

Lately? Well, the GOP opposed the massive healthcare spending bill. Political move? Probably, but they made it. Lately they've done nothing more than call for less spending, which is all I'd hope for right now. We are in an awfully bad situation and spending must slow down.

The GOP's 01-09 spending is noted, although the left had the Congress from 06-09, right? And, noting the GOP's past, Bill Clinton had a GOP Congress for his entire term, and together they did a pretty good job economically. Clinton was a politician first, progressive second. Obama is the opposite, and thats the problem.

So, who would I support? Romney/Powell would be my dream ticket honestly.If Palin were to run, the absolute rabid nature of the left wing media would take our country into an area of disgust that I really would rather just avoid that altogether.

Romney is a mormon, and that supposedly is his political weak spot, but it doesn't matter to me. And yes, he passed universal healthcare in Mass and it has been a failure. Thus, when his opponents come after him for that, he runs on the "I've learned from the mistake" platform, which is a strong contrast to Obama's percieved arrogance. In my opinion, that would be a brilliant move by Romney to use the failed Mass healthcare plan as a way to come across as modest and willing to listen and learn from the citizens.

I have always liked Romney and Powell is a respected hero. I think America would accept them over any other Republican ticket.

The only problem is that the Republicans won't accept them as their standard bearer. Romney is a mormon, healthcare passing, easterner while Powell supported Obama in the last election.

I can't get excited over any other Republicans out there. Scott Brown has potential for 2016 and bears watching

 

[bucs90]

OK

Fair enough. We will only look forward then. So we are no longer talking about Bush/Cheney but the Republican Party as a whole. Is there anything in the recent record of the GOP showing that they will be spending responsibly?
Does their 8 years from 2001-2009 not count at all in determining their future fiscal responsibility?

Its great to see you want someone far, far better than Obama. If thats the case, I will vote for him too. But we are a little over two years away from the election, would you be able to identify who that person might be or whose candidacy you would support?

I wanted Romney than and still do. In an economic mess, you elect an economics expert, which he is. He would need a military type VP. Romney/Powell would be an amazing ticket in my opinion.

Lately? Well, the GOP opposed the massive healthcare spending bill. Political move? Probably, but they made it. Lately they've done nothing more than call for less spending, which is all I'd hope for right now. We are in an awfully bad situation and spending must slow down.

The GOP's 01-09 spending is noted, although the left had the Congress from 06-09, right? And, noting the GOP's past, Bill Clinton had a GOP Congress for his entire term, and together they did a pretty good job economically. Clinton was a politician first, progressive second. Obama is the opposite, and thats the problem.

So, who would I support? Romney/Powell would be my dream ticket honestly.If Palin were to run, the absolute rabid nature of the left wing media would take our country into an area of disgust that I really would rather just avoid that altogether.

Romney is a mormon, and that supposedly is his political weak spot, but it doesn't matter to me. And yes, he passed universal healthcare in Mass and it has been a failure. Thus, when his opponents come after him for that, he runs on the "I've learned from the mistake" platform, which is a strong contrast to Obama's percieved arrogance. In my opinion, that would be a brilliant move by Romney to use the failed Mass healthcare plan as a way to come across as modest and willing to listen and learn from the citizens.

I have always liked Romney and Powell is a respected hero. I think America would accept them over any other Republican ticket.

The only problem is that the Republicans won't accept them as their standard bearer. Romney is a mormon, healthcare passing, easterner while Powell supported Obama in the last election.

I can't get excited over any other Republicans out there. Scott Brown has potential for 2016 and bears watching

Yeah, unfortunately, I think you're right. Being mormon and attempting healthcare in Mass will likely prevent a serious run by Romney. Mormon shouldn't matter, but I know in reality it will. Healthcare? Seriously if the GOP wants to run on repealing the healthcare bill, who better to lead it than someone who can say "I tried it, it failed, I learned from the mistake, lets repeal this national version before it bankrupts us". Brilliant platform IMO. But, as I said, you're likely right that he won't get it.

Powell as Romney's VP makes sense to me also. Yes, he supported Obama, which IMO would allow the right to make a case that they will be bipartisan. The left would have difficulty playing race against Romney/Powell when Powell is black. Also, Romney/Powell could use Powell's support of Obama to say they tried Obama, Powell endorsed him, and Obama failed to keep his campaign promises. To have Powell saying he supported Obama's campaign promises, but now doesn't support his actualy actions is a gold mine.

The Romney/Powell ticket to me makes sense two ways. One it's strong economics/strong military. Two, the major knocks the left will throw at the GOP will be: You want to repeal healthcare, the race card, "party of no".

Romney/Powell would be able to trump the healthcare issue with "Tried it in Mass, it failed long run", Powell is black, and Powell supported Obama's campaign, thus showing an ability for the VP to add bipartisanship to the ticket.

I believe thats the GOP's strongest ticket politically as well as practically in dealing with our issues. But, as you said correctly, petty stuff probably won't allow it to happen.

 

[rightwinger]

Romney/Powell could run a centrist, cost containing, fiscally conservative platform that would cross boundaries. Powell appeals to both parties but pissed off the GOP purists

I don't know if the Tea Party will exist in 2012 or will self destruct in 2010. If the GOP rightwing conservative power play fails in 2010....a Romney/Powell could win in 2012

 

[bucs90]

Romney/Powell could run a centrist, cost containing, fiscally conservative platform that would cross boundaries. Powell appeals to both parties but pissed off the GOP purists

I don't know if the Tea Party will exist in 2012 or will self destruct in 2010. If the GOP rightwing conservative power play fails in 2010....a Romney/Powell could win in 2012

Yeah, that would be the hard part. Convincing the GOP purists and Tea Party people that Romney/Powell is the best choice. I think first off, if we are honestly going to change politics, somewhere in time we're gonna have to start picking the candidate that will serve the country best, not who has the best chance to win. And right now, our major issues IMO are 1-economy, 2-military. So, Romney/Powell makes sense.

As for winning with that ticket, I think the GOP knows 2010 and especially 2012 are win-at-all-costs type scenarios. The Tea Party and GOP purists simply won't vote for Obama again. So they are in the huddle no matter how much it pisses them off. The only issue I believe in 2012 is that right now the independents are on board with the right, but, that could easily change in 2 years. So, start building a ticket that can bring independents.

I also don't think the public wants a hateful campaign, again. So, rather than running simply on "I'm not Obama", Romney/Powell would be able to run on the platform that Romney tried healthcare, and it failed. And Powell supported candidate Obama, but lost faith in President Obama after 4 years.

If Obama is smart politically, he'll avoid anything major like healthcare for a while. Let the anger die down some before 2012. If that anger cools down, the Tea Party won't be as influential, and an independent draw will be necessary. So, one can hope, and I hope for Romney/Powell. About a 5% chance that'll come true, but if someone asks who I support, thats who. Practically and politically a good combo.

 

[tommywho70x]

it cracks me up the obsession the left has over sarah palin...you guys act like she is the only person who speaks for the right, as if it is a forgone conclusion she wins the primary...

i lean towards the right and i do not support her...at this time during bush's last term, barely anyone thought obama had a remote chance

stop being party hacks for once

i'm a solid middle monkey so i don't really get that excited about her.

she's just another picture in the gallery at the Loser's Museum.

she seems to me to really be enjoying her role as GOP pom-pom girl.

 

[tommywho70x]

by powell are we meaning colin and hasn't he made it pretty clear that he would not run for anything?