Paging Conservatives: The 2012 Republican POTUS Candidates

[Direckshun]

This is a thread specifically for Republicans and conservatives on this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that just about every one of you really don't like Mitt Romney as a Presidential candidate against Obama. That may not be universally true of all of you folks, but I'd think it's true of much of you, if not nearly all of you.

At the same time, outside of the minority of you who were big on Ron Paul, Romney was unquestionably the best candidate for your party out of the primaries, was he not? At least among the people who were doing anything in the polls. Santorum led at one point, as did Michelle Bachmann but I think all the DC conservatives here hate both. I don't think a single one of you have an ounce of respect for Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain as POTUS candidates (my apologies if you actually do). And Rick Perry was... well, Rick Perry.

Yes, I know most of you would prefer almost all those folks to Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that this seemed like a particularly weak crop.

I am not a conservative or a Republican, but I think compared to previous primary fields for your party, this was a very weak cycle in terms of POTUS candidates.

My question is -- why do you think that is? Why do you think we had such a weak crop of POTUS candidates for your party?

Because right now, it really does seem like the GOP has a deeper bench of people that have Presidential timber than do the Democrats, who outside of Obama and Hillary Clinton, don't really have much of a bench at all. And yet... these candidates didn't seem to have their shit together.

I'm just interested in picking your brains. I'm not even remotely interested in debating or arguing, just wanted to see what your points of view on the subject might be.

[patteeu]

I think Romney is the perfect candidate for the time and he'll make a very good President. Either Direckshun has me on ignore or I've been too coy about this.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Literature

And yet liberals can make do with the taunts of 'Oh no, Obama was born in Kenya and hates America or something.' You're giving a pretty weak narrative of how the Republican party decides who its candidates will be. Most of these are huge exaggerations. For instance, Guiliani was never attacked for having gay friends by anyone as far as I remember; he was attacked for running entirely on 9/11.

Your critique would have a little more traction if there was a concerted effort to mock Obama regarding glimmers of social conservatism.

"Hey atheists, your precious Obama goes to church!!"

"Hey gays, Obama's position on your right to marry is 'evolving' LOL!!"

Might also have a little more traction if the Democrats were less united in their position that their side winning was the prime directive.

Ostensibly, liberals are supposed to WANT leaders who form diverse friendships, believe in global warming, etc. But **** if they're going to admit that reasonable people who aren't on their team are reasonable in the midst of an election. Save that for when the election is over and power is secured. There are few people Democrats love more than a Republican who loses.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Your critique would have a little more traction if there was a concerted effort to mock Obama regarding glimmers of social conservatism.

"Hey atheists, your precious Obama goes to church!!"

"Hey gays, Obama's position on your right to marry is 'evolving' LOL!!"

Might also have a little more traction if the Democrats were less united in their position that their side winning was the prime directive.

There's as much concerted effort to mock Obama for those things as there are in liberal efforts for your own complaints. In other words, not much at all, so find something more credible to complain about.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

If a fiscally sound candidate is socially conservative as well, then he's a religious wingnut. AND if a fiscally sound candidate is socially liberal or even moderate in one aspect, then they liberal chattering class pound pound POUND how he's not a real conservative.

'Oh no, Giuliani has gay friends.'

'Oh no, Huntsman believes in global warming.'

'Oh no, Rubio is Mexican or something.'

'Oh no, Gingrich has been divorced!!'

Mind, these are not conservative complaints. THey are liberal taunts.

And the tragedy is that conservatives hear this and get cold feet.

Interesting insights, Baby Lee.

I actually don't think social issues matter as much to the conservative base these days -- I think they've been replaced by what we'll call the Obama Litmus Test.

This leads me to my theory about this weak-ass crop of GOPers who ran for POTUS, but I invite you to correct me since you're closer to the party's philosophies than I am.

My theory: the Obama Litmus Test has replaced social conservativism and even economic conservativism in the GOP.

Anything Obama does is bad in the eyes of conservatives, therefore if you're in favor of anything he's done, share positions with him, or have worked with him, you're a bad conservative.

The problem is that Obama has embraced what most people consider a center-left path (I'd consider it center-right, but I understand that no Republican/conservative in this forum will ever agree with me on that). The stimulus package was centrist. Healthcare reform was centrist. Instituting a bevy of new regulations to create barriers in the financial industry to help prevent another crash... centrist. Obama's jobs plan that was shot down, centrist. Cap and trade, centrist. These were all ideas that, for the majority of modern American life, were embraced by at least a good number of Republicans. But once Obama became President, they became bad, and standing up for them is bad.

So since a lot of the center (and in some cases, center-right) policy territory has been claimed by Obama, and that's inherently bad, immediately a bunch of your center-right candidates can't run, included in that is Chris Christie or Jon Huntsman. (And, honestly, Romney, who basically won this primary by default.) And your smarter rightwing candidates don't run because that philosophy historically doesn't fare well in a general election, and they're smart enough to keep their political capital before burning it in an unlikely run for the White House.

So you end up with a bunch of unacceptable fringe candidates like Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cains, a few never-weres like Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich. Because anybody towards the middle is going to share more positions with Obama, which cannot be tolerated anymore in the GOP base.

Anyway, that's my take -- I wanted to see if anybody shared it but mainly I wanted to see why exactly the GOP ended up with the crop that it did this year.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Literature

There's as much concerted effort to mock Obama for those things as there are in liberal efforts for your own complaints. In other words, not much at all, so find something more credible to complain about.

Be ****ed.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

We're in a really surreal time fiscally. It seems as if an exponentially expanding sector of the populace are realizing that our path is unsustainable, but are in turn scared to death that, since we put ourselves on this path long ago, continuing to go down it is the only way to survive.

We guiltily realize that we cannot continue to rely on government entitlements at the level we do. But we also fear that without entitlements there will be no source for our needs.

We're like that sad sack at the blackjack table who know's we lost our shirt, but if we don't continue to play we're going to have to walk out of the casino empty handed.

So we know deep down we need to eat our vegetables, but we're in no mood for the greengrocer president. Give us some more of those free government twinkies, just for a little while longer.

Plus, the liberal chattering class both hate and love the social issues. If a fiscally sound candidate is socially conservative as well, then he's a religious wingnut. AND if a fiscally sound candidate is socially liberal or even moderate in one aspect, then they liberal chattering class pound pound POUND how he's not a real conservative.

'Oh no, Giuliani has gay friends.'

'Oh no, Huntsman believes in global warming.'

'Oh no, Rubio is Mexican or something.'

'Oh no, Gingrich has been divorced!!'

Mind, these are not conservative complaints. THey are liberal taunts.

And the tragedy is that conservatives hear this and get cold feet.

'The cool kids are saying this guy isn't right for us. I don't see it. He seems like a great candidate. But what if I'm wrong? What if we lose with him on the ticket?'

Add to this the ever burgeoning factor that a presidential campaign is not something good people have the stomach to submit their family to, and the Giulianis, Christies, Hunstmans, et al staying out of the race or dropping out early on.

I'm fine with Romney. I've never been particularly enthusiastic about him, but that's more a function of optics. If elected I have faith that he'll do a good job. But getting there, I've seen long ago that his vulnerabilities would be exploited much as they have to date.

He's wealthy. The manner he created his wealth is legitimate but hard to explain to traditional wage earners.

He's a solidly charitable and compassionate man, but his faith structure mandates that he not publicize that fact. So the way is cleared to distribute the narrative that he hoards his wealth and only cares about the wealthy, when the truth is the polar opposite.

He believes that individual, local, community compassion is superior to faceless federal entitlement, but he also believes that those actual acts of individual, local community compassion are private matters. This leaves the conundrum of a powerful message that should be widely applauded, but should not be promoted, just somehow understood. People aren't mind-readers, though.

In sum, I freely admit that he's an unpopular candidate, but fully believe that, if elected, would become a highly popular leader.

Wow, brilliant post. It almost brought a tear to my eye it hit the mark so hard.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

Well, not really. But if you insist on making that claim that he apologizes for the U.S., I think it's probably best to avoid using the term "Apologist" which is understood to mean "A person who defends with reason." I think the term "Apologizer" is better for those purposes, but it would be best to come up with a word that didn't risk deluting our Greek intellectual heritage. "Atoner," "Pardonee," "Deprecator," "Bewailer."

How about "self-loathing Islamist sympathizer"?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Be ****ed.

It's worse than your "Obama really just accepts [current policy formerly considered conservative] so he can get to [policy promoted by far left, with few implications with Obama] so we should do our duty to object to [current policy formerly considered conservative] even though it's a decent/good/workable/reasonable proposal."

Your whole political philosophy is based on a slippery slope theory, which you find inevitable unless we cut off the advance to the 'top of the hill.' Ex: Market-involved healthcare reform? Can't have it. Why? Because it will lead to socialism. Alternative? No reform at all. Result: millions still w/o insurance, health care costs continue to rise exponentially, nobody's happy, but at least we avoided the hypothetical socialism that could have hypothetically happened down the hypothetical road.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Interesting insights, Baby Lee.

You have to know that I see this through a diametrically opposed prism.

Bush was demonized for being simultaneously EXTREME RW, and too centrist, often by the same critics, occasionally seemingly in the same breath.

Centrism is one thing, the path to centrism is another.

There's widespread consensus that fiscal liberalism isn't the answer, I'm not talking merits, I'm talking consensus. So let's call that 'the whole loaf'

There's a difference between;

'I think we should give away the whole loaf, would at least you let us give away 2/3 of the loaf.'

and

'We shouldn't being giving away the loaf, but if you insist I think we can live with giving away 1/2'

But the liberal argument seeks to gripe about both approaches fungibly.

'Our side isn't liberal, because he only got us 2/3 of a loaf, and besides who are you to talk of loaf responsibility when your last guy just tossing around 1/2 loaves willy-nilly?'

So people respond '**** it, lets stick to a no loaf policy. Loaf coveters hate us anyway.'

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

It's worse than your "Obama really just accepts [current policy formerly considered conservative] so he can get to [policy promoted by far left, with few implications with Obama] so we should do our duty to object to [current policy formerly considered conservative] even though it's a decent/good/workable/reasonable proposal."

Your whole political philosophy is based on a slippery slope theory, which you find inevitable unless we cut off the advance to the 'top of the hill.' Ex: Market-involved healthcare reform? Can't have it. Why? Because it will lead to socialism. Alternative? No reform at all. Result: millions still w/o insurance, health care costs continue to rise exponentially, nobody's happy, but at least we avoided the hypothetical socialism that could have hypothetically happened down the hypothetical road.

This post doesn't even make sense. No one outside of maybe the ronpauls has argued that the only alternative to Obamacare is no reform at all.

[La literatura]

Baby Lee-like criticism of Romney:

I oppose Romney because he advocates for curbing costs of Medicare. It's not that curbing costs of Medicare is a bad idea, it's just that I know (or, I think I know) what he really wants is to get rid of Medicare altogether. And with Medicare gone, the conservatives will then be able to move to dismantling social security. And when that's gone, they will move to getting rid of temporary unemployment insurance, the Department of Agriculture, the income tax, the 14th Amendment, and nominate judges who completely obliterate commerce clause jurisprudence.

With all that gone, we can then return to market-based solutions for everything, including wages, labor determinations, and possibly reintroduce slavery.

It's not that I oppose Romney for curbing costs to Medicare. It's that I oppose Romney because it will lead to slavery.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Literature

It's worse than your "Obama really just accepts [current policy formerly considered conservative] so he can get to [policy promoted by far left, with few implications with Obama] so we should do our duty to object to [current policy formerly considered conservative] even though it's a decent/good/workable/reasonable proposal."

Your whole political philosophy is based on a slippery slope theory, which you find inevitable unless we cut off the advance to the 'top of the hill.' Ex: Market-involved healthcare reform? Can't have it. Why? Because it will lead to socialism. Alternative? No reform at all. Result: millions still w/o insurance, health care costs continue to rise exponentially, nobody's happy, but at least we avoided the hypothetical socialism that could have hypothetically happened down the hypothetical road.

First, a Republican compromise alternative to a liberal proposal is not the same thing as a conservative policy. Not by a long shot.

Second, no reform at all is a lie. A bald faced lie.

But you know all this, and simply wish to mischaracterize and lie for a few precious inches of partisan ground.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by patteeu

This post doesn't even make sense. No one outside of maybe the ronpauls has argued that the only alternative to Obamacare is no reform at all.

What was the conservative alternative for health care reform? It was the Heritage Fund's policy, adopted by Romney. What did it become? Punitive damage caps?

[bevischief]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

I don't like Mitt Romney because of his liberal past. I don't believe for a minute that he is a conservative. His handlers are making him try to appear conservative, but it isn't fooling me. The problem with the Republican party is that the solid conservatives that are in good standing with the party never want to throw their hats in the ring. It is always the Neocons and people that aren't liked by the typical Republicans. Everyone hypes the next election cycle as the one when there are going to be a field of good candidates, but it never happens. I think that if Rand Paul runs in 2016, he will run away with the nomination and generate the most enthusiasm for a Republican candidate that we've seen since Reagan.'

If someone like Coburn or Demint threw their hats in the rings, I think they could generate a lot of enthusiasm as well.

We can only hope.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

First, a Republican compromise alternative to a liberal proposal is not the same thing as a conservative policy. Not by a long shot.

I love this. If that was the Republican compromise alternative, then what other reason is the Democratic acceptance of the compromise alternative now an anti-conservative proposal accept that the name of the supporting party has been switched? It went from "Here's an acceptable compromise" to "Oh, now that you took the compromise, we can call it an evil, anti-American piece of legislation that needs to be opposed/overturned/vilified."

What other reason besides partisan lines is the cause for this? It was tried and found not workable? Absolutely not.