Originally Posted by millennialX

Well, Cain is done now.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/03/electi...html?hpt=hp_t1

".....and then there were seven."

Originally Posted by TeddyR

".....and then there were seven."

Actually only two viable candidates left.

Originally Posted by TeddyR on 11/10/11

In America's new favorite reality TV show, the GOP Presidential race, we are waiting to see who will be the next person to get thrown of the island.

I am going with Herb Cain, although Huntsman and Perry can't be far behind. I think Cain will withdraw before the first primary. He is imploding daily.

I'd like Perry to have a few drinks before the next debate, so we can have maple syrup hugging, Paul Lynde version of Perry.

Ok, I got Cain right, even without the help of astrology.

Who is next? Gonna get a succession of them in the next 8 weeks. I am taking Santorum.

Any takers?

I am finding the GOP nomination race very interesting although I am afraid its going to be Romney.

I have a question for the conservative posters here. Why are you going to go for Romney, can't you see he's not a real conservative?

Here's how I see, correct me if I got something wrong.

Since 1952 one can defined a conservative and a moderate wing of the GOP. The former can be represented by Taft, Goldwater, Reagan, GW Bush and Candidate X. The latter by Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, GHW Bush, Dole, and McCain.

Initially winning GOP candidates came from the moderate wing. More recently the conservative wing has provided an increasing share of winning elections:

Period	Conservative record	Moderate record
1952-1968	0 win 1 loss	3 win 1 loss
1972-1988	2 win 0 loss	2 win 1 loss
1992-2008	2 win 0 loss	0 win 3 loss

Reflecting this record, the conservative wing has grown to a point where it dominates the party. Given this, I think the conservative wing is justified in wanting the GOP nominee to come from their wing of the party. I believe this is the source of the unpopularity of Mitt Romney. Normally Mr. Romney would be a shoo in as he is the heir apparent. Republicans almost always nominate the guy perceived as next in line. McCain was the runner up in 2000, and since Bush's VP did not run we has next in line. Reagan was runner up in 1976, made 1980's runner up his VP and he got the nod in 1988. In 1996 Bush I's VP did not run and Ford's running mate, who was next in succession, was nominated. By 2000 there was no heir and all, and so the GOP very sensibility went with the son (and natural heir) of the most recent GOP president.

By this calculus, the heir was Sarah Palin, but when she opted out, it fell to Mitt Romney as runner up in 2008. But Romney is from the moderate wing of the party who not only does not represent the majority of Republicans, but haven't won an election in more than 20 years.

So Republicans very naturally want a viable alternative to Romney. Also Republicans are a traditional party and so prefer a traditional candidate. Every president save one has been a Protestant, and the sole exception was a Democrat.

Unless the conservative Protestant denominations collective decide that Mormons are Protestants, Mr Romney is disqualified to be a GOP nominee.

Similarly every president has been a man, so that rules out Bachman. They all, save one, have been white, but this is not longer relevant with Mr. Cain's departure.

Finally the GOP is now a Southern party and it's high time for an honest to God son of the South to be the party's standard bearer. Back when the Solid South was Democratic, the Dems almost always had a Southerner on the ticket. Of course Romney could fulfill this requirement by picking a Southern running mate. But there are two Southerners running and both are big names.

Both Perry and Gingrich are excellent choices for a conservative standard-bearer. Of the two Gingrich has the longer record, and should have already wrapped up the nomination like Mr Bush did in 1999. The fact that he didn't demonstrates that conservative Republicans very much do not like Gingrich.

Less was known about Perry and he was received very enthusiastically when he announced, but as the inevitable vetting began the shine came off. After going through a whole string of Romney alternatives the voters are now flocking to Gingrich out of desperation. Yet he has not been vetted yet, and it may well turn out that there is lots more to dislike plus what already is out there.

Shouldn't it be obvious that Gingrich is going to have more problems than the other guys. Why not just embrace Perry? He's the governor of the biggest red state, meets all the requirements, is solidly conservative, and could never be mistaken for a Ivy League elitist and closet liberal. He's probably the most acceptable to conservative Christians and is certainly the most enthusiastic about guns.

On economic policy, he certainly won't raise taxes, and will appoint people who will gut regulations wherever they can. This is exactly what any of the other GOP candidates would do so there is no difference here.

As far as foreign policy is concerned, this election won't be about that and so it doesn't matter.

What's wrong with Perry as a Republican nominee? Why would conservatives prefer Romney to Perry?

The Professor will be interested to see Obama is listening to historians:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69685.html

Bully Mr. President!

Looks to me more like Obama is channeling the energy and issues of Occupy, but channeling TR could be a way to do that.

Regarding Mike's post above: the problem here is that the meaning of the term "conservative" has not remained constant. Many of those who were considered "conservative" in their own time are now regarded by the hard-core Republicans as "moderates" (or, less politely, as "RINOs"). That includes Goldwater and even Reagan. Also, if you ask Republican core voters whether they consider George W. Bush a "conservative," they will answer differently than you did. They will say that he was not, and cite his prescription-drug benefit program, No Child Left Behind, and the bank bailout as evidence. Nor did he campaign as a fire-eating right-winger by any means; he presented virtually identical policy positions to those of his Democratic opponents,

In fact, by today's core Republican standards, no GOP nominee has ever been a conservative. Not one.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

".....and then there were seven."

Plus probably the two best ones that never get any attention. The two best of a bad lot, I mean.
(Johnson and Roemer)

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Ok, I got Cain right, even without the help of astrology.

But I said so specifically here; did you? And I also said Gingrich would be the next one to rise. All here, and all by astrology. So there!

Who is next? Gonna get a succession of them in the next 8 weeks. I am taking Santorum.

Any takers?

Now that would be a crap shoot! Santorum seems a good bet though, if noone else crashes and burns before the actual voting. I'm sure Santorum will stay until the reality that he's not getting any votes sinks in.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

What's wrong with Perry as a Republican nominee? Why would conservatives prefer Romney to Perry?

Good analysis, but what is apparent so far is that being stupid is a disqualification.

I guess that could change; if they liked GWBush, why not Perry? But Perry so far is much stupider as a candidate.

I'd say astrology trumps good sense strategic analysis! I knew none of the conservatives had a shot except maybe Gingrich, regardless of what the voters may think about the historical record.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Ok, I got Cain right, even without the help of astrology.

Who is next? Gonna get a succession of them in the next 8 weeks. I am taking Santorum.

Any takers?

He's now as valid as anyone. We are going to see soon enough why he went from being one of the most powerful members of the Senate to being an ex-Senator after having lost a Senate seat 59-41 in a slightly-Blue state. Here is how Rick Santorum has most recently been seen in the State in which he was a US Senator between 1994 and 2006:

Q7 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of Rick Santorum?
Favorable......................................... ............... 31%
Unfavorable .................................................. .. 53%
Not sure .................................................. ........ 16%

and how he would do against the President in Pennsylvania:

Q13 If the candidates for President next year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Rick
Santorum, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama............................................. ... 47%
Rick Santorum.......................................... ...... 42%
Undecided......................................... .............. 10%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...ania.html#more

Note that President Obama is in a tie against Mitt Romney before the campaigning gets serious. This is from last month.


In all seriousness the recent low approval ratings for the President more reflect how people feel about their lives than whether he is doing a good job. Because people concern themselves with their economic conditions more than anything else (and economic position is always shaky in a 4T) and will support anyone who offers a quick fix, it might seem that the President is vulnerable. But Congress is even less popular, with Republicans in bigger trouble in Congress.

The most telling poll is not that Congress has a 14% approval rating... but when asked about their current Congressional Representative, the approval rating goes up only to 41%. Ordinarily one would expect approval for one's specific Representative to be in the 50's or 60's with approval in general of Congress much lower. I figure that Representatives in ultra-safe seats (let us say Charles Rangell (D, NY-15) in the Bronx or Spencer Bachus (R, AL-06) in northern Alabama except for urban Birmingham) have very high approval ratings with districts best described as D+40 and R+30 appropriately served by ideologues... but in more middling places we might have districts best described as between R+5 and D+5 having Representatives whose ideological stances and voting records suggest that they are well-suited for R+30 districts. Right-wing ideologues won heavily in 2010, and moderates can defeat those in a Presidential year in which the electorate is larger.

The President's political weaknesses all relate to the general economy. To be sure, that was the problem for the elder Bush, and the current President's successes in foreign policy are far slighter than those of the elder Bush and the economy is in worse shape than it was for the elder Bush. But that should make the President easy to defeat?

Not really. Bill Clinton, who would prove wise enough to continue the foreign policy of his predecessor, went on the attack entirely on the economy. The elder Bush, never a masterful campaigner, campaigned without zest for re-election and fell short. Clinton stayed clear of the economic agenda of McGovern-Carter era Democrats... and won. Republicans have been carping about everything that the President does, which is a winning strategy against an abject failure but not against anyone else.

Any overall good news on economic matters makes President Obama a near-lock on re-election. It's not that things are fine; it's that there is little to go wrong for which Republicans can't be saddled with blame. The Republicans won the majority in Congress and showed that they had learned nothing from defeats in 2006 and 2008 except to be more devious, doctrinaire, and ruthless. Now we all know.

OK, here is that link again.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Regarding Mike's post above: the problem here is that the meaning of the term "conservative" has not remained constant.

You're quite right. I was using "conservative in its modern "tribal" sense. Goldwater was always considered to be a member of the conservative wing. Reagan was very much considered a conservative by self-described conservatives when he ran for president in 1976. GHW Bush was most definitely not one of the them as he came from the old East Coast Establishment and had called Reagan's economic program voodoo economics. GW Bush was very much welcomed as one of their own by self-described conservatives when he came on to the scene in 1999, while McCain very much was not (he even relished this fact by his calim of being a maverick). Romney has never been seen as a member of the tribe, whereas Sarah Palin and Rick Perry are clearly members.

Of course after his failure, conservatives are going to claim that Bush II was never really one of us, but this is just sour grapes. Were one of the anti-Romney's nominated and then lose to Obama you can be sure they would boot him from the club, blaming his loss on not being authentic enough.

What I am interested in is a different dynamic. I think nominated Gingrich would be the very best outcome for our side. Religious folks don't like him. My born-again sister-in-law can't stand him, whereas they were enthusiastic about Bush.

This doesn't mean the religious right won't support him. They will fall into line like the good soldiers they always are, but having two GOP nominees being chosen without taking their issues into consideration is going to rankle. Why work your butt off for a slime like Gingrich or a robot like Romney?

Last 4T fundamentalists withdrew from the outside world after becoming disgusted with it. If something like this happened the GOP could restructure into more a of centrist-right business party, which would like bring a lot of socially liberal economic conservatives into the Republican fold. Having a rational conservative party would force Democrats to debate the issues from an ideological standpoint instead of simply being the only option for conservatives who value rationality and competence. To do this they would have to pick up themes from groups like OWS, which hopefully will have injected additional memes into the political stew.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Last 4T fundamentalists withdrew from the outside world after becoming disgusted with it. If something like this happened the GOP could restructure into more a of centrist-right business party, which would like bring a lot of socially liberal economic conservatives into the Republican fold. Having a rational conservative party would force Democrats to debate the issues from an ideological standpoint instead of simply being the only option for conservatives who value rationality and competence.

I think so too.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You're quite right. I was using "conservative in its modern "tribal" sense. Goldwater was always considered to be a member of the conservative wing. Reagan was very much considered a conservative by self-described conservatives when he ran for president in 1976.

It is interesting how much the conservative movement has changed since 1964, no doubt a generational and turnings thing. Goldwater Republicans circa 1964 would not be all that pleased with the turn things have taken -- in particular the role of religion. How different are modern conservatives in the US from fundamental Islamic parties in the middle east?

Originally Posted by TeddyR

It is interesting how much the conservative movement has changed since 1964, no doubt a generational and turnings thing. Goldwater Republicans circa 1964 would not be all that pleased with the turn things have taken -- in particular the role of religion. How different are modern conservatives in the US from fundamental Islamic parties in the middle east?

You are correct that the coservative movement has changed and I still think that the USA would have been better served by Goldwater instead of Johnson. Your comment about modern conservatives seems extreme-I do not see heads being chopped off or so called 'honor killings'.

Originally Posted by radind

You are correct that the coservative movement has changed and I still think that the USA would have been better served by Goldwater instead of Johnson. Your comment about modern conservatives seems extreme-I do not see heads being chopped off or so called 'honor killings'.

Sure you do. We just have another name for it -- capital punishment.

We all knew this was coming. Ugh!

Source: Herman Cain to Endorse Newt Gingrich Monday

ATLANTA - Herman Cain might be out of the running as a Republican presidential candidate, but his voice still carries weight with his many loyal supporters. Since he bowed out of the race Saturday, there has been much speculation on who he would endorse.

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news...ay-20111204-tm

Originally Posted by radind

You are correct that the coservative movement has changed and I still think that the USA would have been better served by Goldwater instead of Johnson.

From what I understand, he suggested he would use nuclear weapons on Hanoi in the unfolding Vietnam War. He might have been fairly moderate (by today's standards) on a lot of other issues, but that alone was (and still would be!) pretty extreme and made him a non-starter with many people--the Daisy Ad and all that. And I'm glad we didn't use nukes for a third time since they were invented. Plus, LBJ did push hard for the Civil Rights Act--even knowing (he's been quoted as saying so) that the Dems would lose the South long-term over that. For a man who in a lot of ways was about political expediency and gamesmanship, he truly did the right thing and fought the good fight there.

There's a lot I liked about Goldwater after hearing him give his thoughts on the issues in the 90s. And Johnson was a bastard in a lot of ways. But, even with his (non-nuclear) escalation of Vietman, he still was probably the better President for that particular time. I don't think Goldwater would have pushed for voting rights and the end of Jim Crow for blacks as hard as Johnson did (and it required a hard fight and lots of congress-wrangling to do it)--not sure if he was directly opposed to it, but the only states he won were Southern ones IIRC (except his home state of Arizona, which I also think he carried), for a reason....

Dems are licking their collective chops at the prospect -

Nancy Pelosi to TPM: "One of these days we'll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

Bubba will destroy him in a single 15-minute interview on the most-watched 60 Minutes show ever where Bill tells all that went on with him and Newt back in the 90s.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

From what I understand, he suggested he would use nuclear weapons on Hanoi in the unfolding Vietnam War. He might have been fairly moderate (by today's standards) on a lot of other issues, but that alone was (and still would be!) pretty extreme and made him a non-starter with many people--the Daisy Ad and all that. And I'm glad we didn't use nukes for a third time since they were invented. Plus, LBJ did push hard for the Civil Rights Act--even knowing (he's been quoted as saying so) that the Dems would lose the South long-term over that. For a man who in a lot of ways was about political expediency and gamesmanship, he truly did the right thing and fought the good fight there.

There's a lot I liked about Goldwater after hearing him give his thoughts on the issues in the 90s. And Johnson was a bastard in a lot of ways. But, even with his (non-nuclear) escalation of Vietman, he still was probably the better President for that particular time. I don't think Goldwater would have pushed for voting rights and the end of Jim Crow for blacks as hard as Johnson did (and it required a hard fight and lots of congress-wrangling to do it)--not sure if he was directly opposed to it, but the only states he won were Southern ones IIRC (except his home state of Arizona, which I also think he carried), for a reason....

But, I doubt that we would have sarificed so many Americans in the Vietnam war.

http://thedragontalking.blogspot.com/

"This is an interesting election season that hasn't started yet. The important action of this election in its primary and caucus phase will of course be on the Republican side, as there is an incumbent Democratic president who has a lock on the nomination. So the fact that the Republicans are in the election news at this point is no surprise. What is rather surprising and, if I'm not mistaken, unprecedented is that the nomination is being largely decided before the first primary or caucus has been held."

More at the link.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

From what I understand, he suggested he would use nuclear weapons on Hanoi in the unfolding Vietnam War. He might have been fairly moderate (by today's standards) on a lot of other issues, but that alone was (and still would be!) pretty extreme and made him a non-starter with many people--the Daisy Ad and all that. And I'm glad we didn't use nukes for a third time since they were invented. Plus, LBJ did push hard for the Civil Rights Act--even knowing (he's been quoted as saying so) that the Dems would lose the South long-term over that. For a man who in a lot of ways was about political expediency and gamesmanship, he truly did the right thing and fought the good fight there.

There's a lot I liked about Goldwater after hearing him give his thoughts on the issues in the 90s. And Johnson was a bastard in a lot of ways. But, even with his (non-nuclear) escalation of Vietman, he still was probably the better President for that particular time. I don't think Goldwater would have pushed for voting rights and the end of Jim Crow for blacks as hard as Johnson did (and it required a hard fight and lots of congress-wrangling to do it)--not sure if he was directly opposed to it, but the only states he won were Southern ones IIRC (except his home state of Arizona, which I also think he carried), for a reason....

Jonathan Alter, the long-time Newsweek correspondent now with Bloomberg, was a student of mine many years ago and we have remained close. He heard the following story from John McCain, covering McCain in 2000.

McCain was running for Senate for the first time and Goldwater was his campaign manager. Goldwater began speculating about what would have happened had he won in 1964. "You know, John," he said, "if I'd won, you'd never have had to spend all those years in a North Vietnamese prison camp."

McCain smiled. "You're right, Barry," he said. "If you'd won, I would have spent them in a Chinese prison camp."

I don't know why, but I loved this clip:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/...ole-1994-video

A great many liberals here and elsewhere are convinced that the Tea Party are simply manipulated by the Republican establishment. That theory, in which I do not believe, is about to be put to the test. The Republican Party and its media arms have created a monster that is about to devour them. Newt Gingrich is hated by just about everyone who knows him at all well--including Ann Coulter!--but he looks an increasingly good bet to be nominated. A great many of my Republican friends are quite depressed about it--but they have only themselves to blame.

Nate Silver gets into the "whys" of this here. Interesting piece.

Originally Posted by radind

But, I doubt that we would have sarificed so many Americans in the Vietnam war.

50,000, versus how many hundreds of thousands or millions with a single nuclear weapon of that time period on Hanoi? But of course, American lives are more valuable than civilian lives of the "enemy" nation. They're Exceptional!

How many people in Hanoi would have deserved getting vaporized or irradiated? Oh, but teh communism was going to knock down dominoes all the way to the shores of California if we didn't do something there, right? That doesn't just look ridiculous in hindsight, either--many people at that time were dubious about the whole idea, and the dubiosity grew as the war progressed. But Eisenhower warned us about certain people getting their way regardless.... So, especially in light of that dubiosity, I don't think it was a cause worthy of using a nuke. I cannot really think of any that would be, as far as a first strike goes. Whether or not the Soviets would have responded in kind (if they would have, that mistake would've bit our own ass pretty badly, wouldn't it?)--even if not, it would have been an atrocity just the same.

Of course, as implied somewhat above, I thought the whole war was a dubious venture, so that even one life lost to it was too many.