Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and the spotlight-chasing candidates of 2012 (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,114
Likes
10,945
Points
113
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will030611.php3

By George Will

If pessimism is not creeping on little cat's feet into Republicans' thinking about their 2012 presidential prospects, that is another reason for pessimism. This is because it indicates they do not understand that sensible Americans, who pay scant attention to presidential politics at this point in the electoral cycle, must nevertheless be detecting vibrations of weirdness emanating from people associated with the party.

The most recent vibrator is Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who won the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa and reached that year's national convention with more delegates than Mitt Romney, and who might run again.

Huckabee, now a Fox News host, was asked by Steve Malzberg, a talk radio host, this:

"Don't you think it's fair also to ask [Barack Obama] . . . how come we don't have a health record, we don't have a college record, we don't have a birth cer - why, Mr. Obama, did you spend millions of dollars in courts all over this country to defend against having to present a birth certificate. It's one thing to say, I've - you've seen it, goodbye. But why go to court and send lawyers to defend against having to show it? Don't you think we deserve to know more about this man?"

Huckabee should have replied, "I've seen paranoia, goodbye." Instead, he said:
"I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough. And one thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya. . . ."

...

So the Republican winnowing process is far advanced. But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.
 
OMFG, what morons the republicans have vying for the nomination. In another thread, I mentioned how there were few actual Conservatives... well, George Will is one of those.

He's basically ripping Newt and Huckabee new assholes, and they well deserve it.
 
I wish politicians would actually have backbones and not just suck up to the LCD.

He should've said what G-Will said. But alas, he fed into the conspiracy because he knows those people, sadly, control the republican vote machine.
 
OMFG, what morons the republicans have vying for the nomination. In another thread, I mentioned how there were few actual Conservatives... well, George Will is one of those.

He's basically ripping Newt and Huckabee new assholes, and they well deserve it.

The certainly do, but let's not imagine that George Will is being even-handed here. He's got a favorite in this race and he's doing what he can to beat down the opponents.

barfo
 
On a related note, I saw in the Oregonian that in the Dorchester Conference straw poll for the 2012 nomination, Barack Obama got one of the 225 votes. Some joker? Rebel Republican? Meant as a vote for none-of-the-above? Acceptance of the inevitable?

[For those not from Oregon, the Dorchester Conference is a meeting of Republican muckety-mucks, power brokers, activists, and the like].

barfo
 
Meant as a vote for none-of-the-above? Acceptance of the inevitable?
Mickey Mouse's birth certificate was found in Tijuana, so he's now rendered ineligible.

On a serious note, from my perspective I don't much care for many of these guys. The retread type is not appealing to me, while I'm a bit disgusted with people who couldn't help our country out as congressmen vying to be President. One of the exceptions to that is Mrs. Clinton. I'd like to hear more about what she's thinking about the country now, after a stint as SecState and seeing what's happened since June 2008.

Is there even a chance that one of the more fiscally radical ("Actually trying to --maybe unpopularly--reduce spending", not "spicoli") people like the governors of NJ, IN and even WI thinking about running?
 
I've always liked Newt, but he has too much baggage. I suspect the GOP will nominate a moderate to take away as many independent votes as possible.
 
I've always liked Newt, but he has too much baggage. I suspect the GOP will nominate a moderate to take away as many independent votes as possible.

I think they SHOULD nominate a moderate, but the amount of votes that takes away from the Democrats won't match, imho, the amount of votes they lose because he (or she) isn't conservative enough. If the R's nominate a moderate candidate, the Tea Party R's will nominate a super conservative candidate. It will have a few good results though.

well hopefully. It would solidify a 3rd candidate option for future elections. And it will split the R vote in half (much like Perot did with the 92 election).
 
I think a second-tier candidate--meaning someone not well-known--will decide to run and take the nomination. I think that person needs to have a record as an executive and be fiscally responsible. I'd love to see the GOP jettison the Huckabee's (evangelicals who don't seem to mind big government) and focus on a more socially-inclusive libertarian message.

Give me guys like Bobby Jindal, Bob McDonnell, Paul Ryan and Jon Huntsman. They'd need a Cheney like "old wise person" as the VP, but that would be fine with me. I love Daniels and Christie, but I can't see either running.
 
Last edited:
Ted Nugent said:
Stakes are high and so am I
It's in the air tonight
It's a free-for-all!

barfo
 
I think a second-tier candidate--meaning someone not well-known--will decide to run and take the nomination. I think that person needs to have a record as an executive and be fiscally responsible. I'd love to see the GOP jettison the Huckabee's (evangelicals who don't seem to mind big government) and focus on a more socially-inclusive libertarian message.

Give me guys like Bobby Jindal, Bob McDonnell, Paul Ryan and Jon Huntsman. They'd need a Cheney like "old wise person" as the VP, but that would be fine with me. I love Daniels and Christie, but I can't see either running.


I hope what the R's don't do, is do what they did in 2000.

After years of ripping Clinton for being a drug user (I didn't inhale), and a draft dodger and someone of somewhat questionable character, they nominated Bush.

Bush was a drug user, got out of serving (and went up against 2 guys who did serve in Vietnam, even if you don't think they did much, they were there) and had somewhat of a questionable character (until later in life). So they basically said "if you can't beat them, join them. And by join them we mean out-smart them and out-think them.

If they follow suit here, and I don't think they will, they'll nominate someone who just recently came into the public's eye (how Obama did in 04 at the DNC) and has not a lot of experience. And if they do that, they'll nominate Palin. A main problem with nominating Palin is things are very different now then they were in 00, 04 and hell, 08. Technology (facebook, twitter, youtube) has made it all but impossible not to dig into someones past and be made to look a fool. And Palin has done/said her fair share of foolish things.

I hope, much like Maxie and BP, they pick someone moderate and not overly religious (meaning, don't shove your religion down our throats, don't make gay marriage an issue and if the word "muslim" comes up regarding Obama, actually say they won't use it as a talking point and actually don't use it as one).

But they won't. $$ talks and bullshit will flow.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top