Predictions: Who will be the GOP Candidate?

[Rum]

Just watched Santorum's resignation speech. He was unconvincing even doing that! What's going on over there?

[Ian]

Just watched Santorum's resignation speech. He was unconvincing even doing that! What's going on over there?

Hard to say, but I'm sure it's Obama's fault.

[Warren Dew]

Hard to say, but I'm sure it's Obama's fault.

Doubtful in this case. Obama was telling his groupies to vote in favor of Santorum.

[Coito ergo sum]

Dammitt, we already had a pope kisser, now there's a coloured, and now they are going to nominate a mormon?
I swear, I'll live to see one of the christ killing jews in the oval office.

The Supreme Court is now 1/3 Jewish. And 2/3 Catholic.

It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!

The WASPs have always been okay with Jews as lawyers....

But, we may have seen the tipping point in 2008. Until then, White Anglo Saxon Protestants have been President 42 out of 43 times, considering even the less religious folks of the Age of Reason, etc., to be WASPs at least culturally/ethnically.

However, we had a woman vs an African American battling it out for the Democrat primary in 2008. This year we had two Mormons, one of which appears to be the nominee, with an African American who led the polling for a while, until toppled by sexual misconduct allegations, along with a female who led the polls for a while until her campaign ran out of steam. So, in 2012 we'll have the two major candidates be black and Mormon. A first.

Have we seen a paradigm shift in racial/ethnic politics?

[Coito ergo sum]

Just watched Santorum's resignation speech. He was unconvincing even doing that! What's going on over there?

Hard to say, but I'm sure it's Obama's fault.

Nothing is ever Obama's fault. It's April, 2012, and on Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning, the discussion centered around blaming George Bush for the economy.

At some point, the responsibility for running the country has to shift. I recall in 2001, there was no delay. The responsiblity was immediately George Bush's, generally speaking, as reported by the mainstream media and anyone on the Democrat side. Now we are more than 3 years into the Obama Presidency, and 2 years of that had him with a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and nothing is anybody in power's fault. Democrat fans seem to believe they are out of power, even when they are overwhelmingly in power.

[Ian]

Just watched Santorum's resignation speech. He was unconvincing even doing that! What's going on over there?

Hard to say, but I'm sure it's Obama's fault.

Nothing is ever Obama's fault. It's April, 2012, and on Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning, the discussion centered around blaming George Bush for the economy.

At some point, the responsibility for running the country has to shift. I recall in 2001, there was no delay. The responsiblity was immediately George Bush's, generally speaking, as reported by the mainstream media and anyone on the Democrat side. Now we are more than 3 years into the Obama Presidency, and 2 years of that had him with a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and nothing is anybody in power's fault. Democrat fans seem to believe they are out of power, even when they are overwhelmingly in power.

Oh please! There's a world of difference between the two situations and you know it. Bush came into office with a federal budget in pretty good order, manageable debt, and an economy that would soon deal with the dotcom micro-recession just fine. In other words, he more or less had a clean slate coming into office, so what he did was his own initiative rather than driven by the need to deal with a host of inherited problems.

In contrast, the 2008-9 recession was far deeper, had begun in the financial and housing sectors (the financial sector being a critical engine of recovery, and housing being the #1 asset most people have and which is also an inherently slow-moving sector of the economy), was exacerbated by a weak budget no thanks to the Bush tax cuts (and the drug plan, and Iraq, etc.), and was then followed by crisis in the Eurozone. It's no surprise to anyone that recovery didn't just happen like a trampoline, no matter who came into office in 2009.

I'm not blaming everything on the Bush administration, btw, though I'll be damned if they don't deserve a tremendous amount of blame for being so financially reckless. Nor would I (or any Democrat I know, in contrast to your implications) say Obama is blamess for anything. My little joke was to point out how everything negative since Obama was elected gets to be his fault with Republicans. Hell, I wouldn't have even made the joke if it wasn't such a meme.

[Clinton Huxley]

Sanatorium gone, Armageddon and the battle against Gog and Magog postponed.

[Warren Dew]

Nothing is ever Obama's fault. It's April, 2012, and on Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning, the discussion centered around blaming George Bush for the economy.

Heh. Bush should have blamed the Iraq war on Clinton. After all, it was Clinton era sanctions that made the war necessary!

[Coito ergo sum]

Just watched Santorum's resignation speech. He was unconvincing even doing that! What's going on over there?

Hard to say, but I'm sure it's Obama's fault.

Nothing is ever Obama's fault. It's April, 2012, and on Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning, the discussion centered around blaming George Bush for the economy.

At some point, the responsibility for running the country has to shift. I recall in 2001, there was no delay. The responsiblity was immediately George Bush's, generally speaking, as reported by the mainstream media and anyone on the Democrat side. Now we are more than 3 years into the Obama Presidency, and 2 years of that had him with a majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and nothing is anybody in power's fault. Democrat fans seem to believe they are out of power, even when they are overwhelmingly in power.

Oh please! There's a world of difference between the two situations and you know it. Bush came into office with a federal budget in pretty good order, manageable debt, and an economy that would soon deal with the dotcom micro-recession just fine. In other words, he more or less had a clean slate coming into office, so what he did was his own initiative rather than driven by the need to deal with a host of inherited problems.

Bush inherited a recession. Further, the good economy of 1994 through 1999 has to be credited at least as much to the Republican Congress than to the President. Everyone knows that the reason for Clinton's success was that he worked with the Republicans and operated, basically, as a conservative Democrat. That's the main reason my estimation of him improved with time, rather than the other way around.

The point I was making regarding Bush was basically that in his first year, he was given no leeway, even though he had as little to do with the 2001 budget as Obama had with the 2009 budget. Meaning nothing, except that Obama had the Stimulus package which was a special bill he wanted and passed by an overwhelmingly Democrat congress, along with the Cash for Clunkers and other such items.

In contrast, the 2008-9 recession was far deeper, had begun in the financial and housing sectors (the financial sector being a critical engine of recovery, and housing being the #1 asset most people have and which is also an inherently slow-moving sector of the economy), was exacerbated by a weak budget no thanks to the Bush tax cuts (and the drug plan, and Iraq, etc.), and was then followed by crisis in the Eurozone. It's no surprise to anyone that recovery didn't just happen like a trampoline, no matter who came into office in 2009.

I'm not blaming everything on the Bush administration, btw, though I'll be damned if they don't deserve a tremendous amount of blame for being so financially reckless. Nor would I (or any Democrat I know, in contrast to your implications) say Obama is blamess for anything. My little joke was to point out how everything negative since Obama was elected gets to be his fault with Republicans. Hell, I wouldn't have even made the joke if it wasn't such a meme.

The fact remains that AT SOME POINT the responsibility has to shift. And, if what the Administration is doing is not helping much, or if it is hurting, then at some point there has to be blame given there. I was quiet about Obama in the first year of his Presidency, and acknowledged that his first year's budget was, as is always the case, made for him, and he had a bad situation inherited. But, for the love of Pete, we are now nearing the end of his term. To suggest he ought not be held accountable for his Administrations actions now, when the election is in 7 months, seems a bit much.

What? He gets a buy into his second term, and only then we consider he's had a sufficient chance?

[Coito ergo sum]

Sanatorium gone, Armageddon and the battle against Gog and Magog postponed.

I'm rooting for Gog.

[Tyrannical]

Gosh, now I'm hoping Mittens will drop out next.

[Svartalf]

In favor of whom ?
Or are you hoping Obie becomes a two term president by winning all 50 states ?

[JimC]

"President Romney"...

Moroni will be insufferable in the angels's bar...

[Svartalf]

Moron I will be the motto of every American who votes for him.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, it begins....

....the never ending, ubiquitous refrain of the "moron" Republican. Two degrees from Harvard -- successful businessman - well-spoken - and still a Moron.

Every Republican candidate since and including Dwight Eisenhower has been labeled an idiot, moron, etc. by Democrat supporters. Well, not every one. There was one who is and always has been deemed quite smart. That's Richard M. Nixon, who isn't labeled a moron, because he can be labeled an evil genius. Every other one, though, is stupid and moronic.

One thing I wish, though, is that the religious right had never risen in the Republican party. Time was, back in the day, that the 'publicans were the party of reason and rationality -- practicalities -- and good business sense - and the Democrats were the bleeding heart tax and spenders whose tears blurred reality and pragmatism into a mush of sentimentality. Now, somehow, despite the fact that the Democrat party has only moved further to the tax and spend side, they are now adopting the position that their overly-emotional bleeding heart approach is actually reason in action. That seems to me to be a direct result of the anti-intellectual religious right coopting the 'publican party.

I think Mitt is a step away from that. Sandorum is the religious right guy -- he and Palin/Bachmann. Newt is also not part of that religious right wing. I'm happy with Mitt because he may be able to get us away from the religious right a bit. Hopefully...