Republican candidates for 2012

• BGFalcons82

  

  Ron Paul was born 8-20-1935. That would make him 77 years old at the 2012 election. He looks in pretty good shape, but doing a little more math, that makes him 81 by the end of the term. We all know how the presidency ages people about 5 times their normal rate (see Obama's pix from 2008 vs. today for more evidence). I don't know if he's up to the grind physically. Reagan was 70 when he was elected to his 1st term and the Dems beat the age drum non-stop. Think they'll beat it again if a 77 year old gets the nomination?
  
  More importantly, his choice of VP would be a HUGE concern, based on his age. How could the Pubs nominate someone whom would have the unbridled ability to select his successor? Yeah, I know...they get to vote on his VP choice at the convention. Do you honestly believe he would be denied? Good gawd...I feel like a Democrat bitchin about a Republican.
• believer

  

  Bottom-line: Ron Paul will not get the nomination. If he decides to go third party again, you might as well pull the lever for 4 more years of Obama-nation.
• I Wear Pants

  Ron Paul is electable. The question is whether he can get the nomination. Which is unlikely.
• O-Trap

  

  BGFalcons82;902288 wrote:Ron Paul was born 8-20-1935. That would make him 77 years old at the 2012 election. He looks in pretty good shape, but doing a little more math, that makes him 81 by the end of the term. We all know how the presidency ages people about 5 times their normal rate (see Obama's pix from 2008 vs. today for more evidence). I don't know if he's up to the grind physically. Reagan was 70 when he was elected to his 1st term and the Dems beat the age drum non-stop. Think they'll beat it again if a 77 year old gets the nomination?
  
  More importantly, his choice of VP would be a HUGE concern, based on his age. How could the Pubs nominate someone whom would have the unbridled ability to select his successor? Yeah, I know...they get to vote on his VP choice at the convention. Do you honestly believe he would be denied? Good gawd...I feel like a Democrat bitchin about a Republican.

  Honestly, the age concern is the one I see as most legitimate. The guy IS old. I can't say I wouldn't trust the guy to pick his successor, as each president takes that risk when assuming office, and each one picks someone they know would take their place in the even that they are assassinated or die in office.
  
  As such, which I see the age issue, I don't think the VP selection would be as big a deal.
  

  I Wear Pants;902442 wrote:Ron Paul is electable. The question is whether he can get the nomination. Which is unlikely.

  He's VERY electable running against a Democrat. In fact, I'd say he'd have a better shot in the presidential election than he will in the primary, because Republicans, like Democrats, tend to vote the party line as a whole. And while Paul may fit what the Republicans' party line was intended to be, he doesn't fit what it has become: an adaptation of the Democrat party, really.
  
  No offense to Democrats or Republicans, but at this point, the two party system is a technicality.
• I Wear Pants

  Social programs or military really.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;902708 wrote:Social programs or military really.

  Pretty much.
• Ty Webb

  

  So Much for Perry's Texas Miracle?
  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/09/19/so_much_for_perrys_texas_miracle.html
  
• majorspark

  

  Ty Webb;903182 wrote:So Much for Perry's Texas Miracle?
  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/09/19/so_much_for_perrys_texas_miracle.html
  

  Interesting
  

  The continued losses are a result of a shrinking public sector, as the private sector continues to create jobs

• Ty Webb

  

  Still at 8.5%
• Belly35

  

  Ty Webb;903182 wrote:So Much for Perry's Texas Miracle?
  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/09/19/so_much_for_perrys_texas_miracle.html
  

  What part of this is a problem … unemployment rate has reached its highest level since June 1987, at 8.5%. The continued losses are a result of a shrinking public sector, as the private sector continues to create jobs
  
  Let me spell this out mofo … The private sector is still creating jobs. Texas has the lowest unemployment rate 8.5 to date… job creation by the private sector.
  
  Ty the public sector does not increase jobs creation it has no potential for growth (no product, no production), the only growth the public sector has is political favoritism.
  
  As the public sector decreased (small government) there will be an increase in unemployment (temporary) and the private sector continues to increase job creation what happen? Rate drops again….
  
  Ty your gas gauge reads half .. Is it half full or half empty?
• Belly35

  

  Obama called to step down .... mofo
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/19/chicago-editorial-writer-suggests-obama-step-down-after-first-term/
  
  http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/61779/astonishing-chicago-tribune-editorial-explains-why-obama-should-withdraw/
• Ty Webb

  

  What do you think Republicans are going to say Belly....
• Belly35

  

  Ty Webb;903271 wrote:What do you think Republicans are going to say Belly....

  Not My President mofo
  
  
  What make you think Steve Chapman Chicago Tribune is a Republican?
• Ty Webb

  

  Belly35;903286 wrote:Not My President mofo
  
  
  What make you think Steve Chapman Chicago Tribune is a Republican?

  Yes Belly....he is your president
• I Wear Pants

  Belly35;903286 wrote:Not My President mofo
  
  
  What make you think Steve Chapman Chicago Tribune is a Republican?

  Didn't know you weren't an American citizen.
• fish82

  

  Ty Webb;903218 wrote:Still at 8.5%

  As opposed to Bam doing the exact opposite and unemployment still @ 9.1%? Slam dunk, broseph.
• Ty Webb

  

  fish.....all Perry has been saying is that unemployment is SO much lower in Texas than nationally.
  
  This proves one of his main arguements false...
• BGFalcons82

  

  Ty Webb;903564 wrote:fish.....all Perry has been saying is that unemployment is SO much lower in Texas than nationally.
  
  This proves one of his main arguements false...

  Forget about Rick Perry for a minute. People vote with their feet every day. Looking at census data, Texas' population grew more than any other state from 2000 to 2010. People chose to live there and not in the Socialist Republic of California. Texas offers more opportunity, a better chance for growth, and no state income taxes. Funny how taxes affect behavior, isn't it?
  
  There are only a handful of states that can boast of measurable economic growth and Texas is one of them. You can parse hairs all day long, but the fact remains people want to live there for their betterment because Texas offers them things no one else can. Is that by pure chance and Perry is the quintessential luckiest governor on earth for 10 years? Methinks not.
• BoatShoes

  Heard a good one that is relevant to this thread: Rick Perry is the Bad Boy that the G.O.P. is obsessed with but Mitt Romney is the guy they'll marry.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I'll write in Gibby before I vote for Rick W. Bush or Mitt Obama.
• jhay78

  

  O-Trap;902193 wrote:The problem is, that "pragmatism" is what has caused the Republican party to be little, if any, better than the Democrat party. Both are bankrupting the country.
  
  Maybe. Maybe not. However, given the parties' track records, it's not inconceivable that he wouldn't be just as bad. Might have been bad in a different way, but that doesn't make it necessarily better.
  
  Suppose, however, that he isn't. The two options we'd be faced with (based on the current crop) may be equally as problematic. One wants to spend trillions on social programs. The other seems bent on continuing to spend trillions on an absurdly bloated military being many places it needs not be.
  
  The what the Republican Party line has become, long term, is just as damaging as the Democrat Party line.

  I'm all in favor of scaling back the military and pulling out of some places we don't need to be, but I wholeheartedly reject the equivocation of military/defense spending and welfare state spending. The military and our national defense are not just another line-item in the budget- they are mandated by the Constitution.
  
  Currently, defense spending takes up under 20% of the total federal budget. Most of us can agree that military spending dollars can decrease, but I am actually in favor of defense spending being a larger portion of the pie. (Under JFK the military budget was something like 44 percent of the total budget.)
  
  I don't know that military spending can be used in the same way as social welfare spending to increase dependency on the federal government for day-to-day needs, ensure a voting bloc of dependent people waiting for a handout, and subsidize/reward inefficiency and unproductivity.
  
  I realize I'm probably splitting hairs here, but I just think there's a difference. Cut military spending? Yes. Compare military spending to Democrats constant expansion of social programs to create dependency and future Dem voters? No way.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;904690 wrote:I'm all in favor of scaling back the military and pulling out of some places we don't need to be, but I wholeheartedly reject the equivocation of military/defense spending and welfare state spending. The military and our national defense are not just another line-item in the budget- they are mandated by the Constitution.
  
  Currently, defense spending takes up under 20% of the total federal budget. Most of us can agree that military spending dollars can decrease, but I am actually in favor of defense spending being a larger portion of the pie. (Under JFK the military budget was something like 44 percent of the total budget.)
  
  I don't know that military spending can be used in the same way as social welfare spending to increase dependency on the federal government for day-to-day needs, ensure a voting bloc of dependent people waiting for a handout, and subsidize/reward inefficiency and unproductivity.
  
  I realize I'm probably splitting hairs here, but I just think there's a difference. Cut military spending? Yes. Compare military spending to Democrats constant expansion of social programs to create dependency and future Dem voters? No way.

  Following a Conservative Strict Constructionist method of interpretation the enumerated powers only expressly grant Congress the power to fund an Army and a Navy. I think you'd be hard pressed using that method of construction to justify that vast and ubiquitous nature of the department of defense.
  
  FWIW the largest expansion of socialized medicine in the United States since the 60's occurred in 2003 with a Republican Congress and a Republican President.
• Ty Webb

  

  Cleveland Buck;904547 wrote:I'll write in Gibby before I vote for Rick W. Bush or Mitt Obama.

  
  Wow....thank you for the honor of your vote Buck:thumbup:
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;904711 wrote:Following a Conservative Strict Constructionist method of interpretation the enumerated powers only expressly grant Congress the power to fund an Army and a Navy. I think you'd be hard pressed using that method of construction to justify that vast and ubiquitous nature of the department of defense.
  
  FWIW the largest expansion of socialized medicine in the United States since the 60's occurred in 2003 with a Republican Congress and a Republican President.

  As Ronnie used to say, "there you go, again." You are once again linking conservatives to Republicans. Not the same thing. You do realize there are conservative Democrats...right? Reagan whooped Carter's ass with their support.
  
  By the way, how did those "Repubs In Name Only" fare in 2006, 2008, and 2010? Did conservatives turn their back on them or reward them?
  
  By the way #2: If the prescription drug benefit for Medicare is sooooo bad, then why didn't the super-majority of Dems during Barry's first 2 years repeal it? They would have much support from at least 1 Senate Republican that they needed.
• Ty Webb

  

  [h=1]CPD Announces 2012 Debate Host Applicants[/h]
  The following have submitted applications to host a 2012 general election debate:
  
  Belmont University (Nashville, TN)
  Centre College (Danville, KY)
  Dominican University of California (San Rafael, CA)
  Eastern Kentucky University (Richmond, KY)
  Hofstra University (Hempstead, NY)
  Indiana University (Bloomington, IN)
  Lynn University (Boca Raton, FL)
  Saint Mary's College of California (Moraga, CA)
  The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey (Pomona, NJ)
  University of Denver (Denver, CO)
  Wake Forest University (Winston-Salem, NC)
  Washington University in St. Louis (St. Louis, MO)
  
  Message board I go to said the front-runners are Bloomington,Denver,and Boca Raton