Decision 2012

United States
November 9, 2008 3:00pm CST
Decision 2008 has been over less than a week, and the pundits are already busy discussing possible Republican presidential candidates for 2012. The frontrunners are predictable assortment of leading Republicans, including Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney. My topic is a two parter:1) Who do you think the best choice is likely to be for the Republicans in 2012--and why? (Here's your chance to become a political prognosticator.) 2) Given the long-windedness and now the seemingly unending nature of U.S. political cycles, do you think there should be some kind of campaign limits built into the election process? Comments are encouraged on an international basis. It seems obvious that the rest of the world has a vested interest in how the U.S. electoral process plays out. Thanks in advance for participating.
2 people like this
10 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
10 Nov 08
I'm neither Democrat or Republican, so I'll give a different perspective. I used to be a republican, but I left the party. I feel the republicans No longer represent true conservatism and the current president, though i suipported many of his policies, killed it for me. If the republican party wishes to regain the base and those it lost, it must return to it's traditions, state's rights, minimal government, fiscal and social conservatism, minimal international involvement, among many others. Unless they do this, they are going to be eventually pushed to the margines as other real conservative parties emerge. I want to see the playing field opened to more parties anyways. The media has a monopoly on influence and being supported by the 2 main parties, the have a vested interest in not giving the others more time or exposure. I urge everyone to write media outlets and demand more, we are only a tow party system because we allow it. As to international interest in our elections. Yes, some things in our elections affect other nations, however, they are OUR elections. Anyone using the opinions of people outside the U.S. to influence their vote in my mind, is guilty of sedition. The U.S. election process is for the U.S alone and though some things effect other nations in some ways, it effects us a thousand fold more and THAT should be our first and only consideration in choosing our elected servents.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
11 Nov 08
I used the term sedition a bit hap hazzardly I guess but it was to make a point. In the end, our elections are our business and global community or not, we are the united states of america, not the united states of the world, in the end, this is our decision and ours alone. Your correct, the republicans have not always been for these things, but as they took the stage on these things and became a conservative party, they did better and better, Bush killed that and the party seemed to follow. Anyway, it make sno difference to me, I am a conservative and very much for minimal federal government and a very strong pro 10th amendment advocate and addition, the republican party has been instrumental in some things that I view as out right ocnstitutional blasphemy, and no, that terminology I do not use lightly. the democrats have been just as guilty. This is why I am now a staunch constitution party member and supporter.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Nov 08
I suppose the point I'd like to add is that the haphazzard use of words in political discussions is a particular pet peeve of mine. In political discussions, too many people say too many outrageous things under the heat of the moment. In my opinion, both parties could use more care--and make fewer accusations that have little basis in fact. So should the supporters of those parties. As for our elections, of course they are ours. No one ever suggested otherwise. But the vested interest of other peoples in our political leadership is undeniable. The United States is the only superpower left on Earth. As such, we have a tremendous impact on other nations--and a corresponding responsibility to understand and respect that impact. If we are concerned about the leadership and policies of a state like, say, Iran, then we should take care to understand the concern caused by our leaders and our policies. It is, in my opinion, both a political and a moral responsibility.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Nov 08
Thanks for stating your opinions as they relate to this discussion. I'd like to make a couple of points regarding your comments. First, the Republican tradition is really pretty varied. Historically, it has not been the party of states' rights and social conservatism. That's really only been its tradition in recent decades. Indeed, the Republican party was founded in support of a strong national government, in oppostition to states rights, and in support of the abolition of slavery--among other issues. Even now, it is possible to find Republicans of a more centrist (even liberal) state of mind. The progressive Republican, though rare these days, is far more in the party tradition than your comments suggest. George H.W. Bush actually comes out of that particular wing of the party. Second, I am curious about your comments on sedition. Yes, these are our elections. But we live in an increasingly global community. Many of us have friends of different nationalities. I know that we do in our household--Brits, Germans, Israelis, Turks, Jordanians, Italians . . . the list goes on. These friends have interesting and often contradictory opinions. Yet we value their input. We listen because their thoughts and opinions matter to us. Are those opinions "influence"? Most definitely. Do they constitute the deciding factor in how we vote? No. But they are data points worth considering. That is not sedition. These are two-way conversations. They get our opinions too. This process is a matter of educating oneself on the issues and how they ripple outward. We do not live in isolation. We are all citizens of the world as well as citizens of our individual countries.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
10 Nov 08
I just about fell over when I saw "DECISION 2012" on the TV screen earlier today but I guess I didn't dream it, did I? Let me try to answer your questions to the best of my ability. 1)I'm not a Republican so I really don't have the "right" to speak for them, but if I was looking to help them out I'd have to say "None of the above" regarding the ones you listed. Palin is too divisive and combative and, in my opinion, not informed enough at least at this time. I actually LIKE Huckabee personally but I think he's too conservative and too likely to really bring religion more into politics than it should be. Some on the far right will love that but too many other voters will not. Gingrich - old news, and not such good news at that. He's also very divisive and carries a lot of baggage. Mitt Romney is too much of a flip-flopper; one can't really go from being the Governor of one of the nation's most liberal states to getting the GOP Presidential nomination as a conservative. If he were to run as a moderate he would have a better chance, maybe. I think they need some truly new blood, possibly Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. I'm sure there must be some other young, up-and-coming Republicans on the state and local level with whom I'm not familiar who may burst onto the scene within the next four years but for now I can't think of anyone else. 2) I'm not sure what you mean by "campaign limits"; do you mean as far as how long a campaign lasts? If so, I'm all for some limits! I'm a political junkie from way back but this campaign seemed to have gone on for 100 years. However, that's not likely to happen and judging by the way the pundits are already talking about 2012 we can probably expect the next campaign to start right after Christmas. Annie
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
18 Nov 08
Thanks for the BR! Unfortunately, I don't see future campaigns getting any shorter, I'm afraid they'll only start earlier every time, if that's even possible. Annie
• United States
11 Nov 08
I pretty much agree with everything you've said. And yes, I do mean limits on how long a campaign can last. I'm a political junkie too, but sometimes the "campaign" gets entirely too much in the way the practical matters of government. Back in the "good old days," the first year of every 2-year political cycle (which is really the basis of our political system) was for governing. The second year was for politiking. These days it seems like everything is about politiking and very little is about governing--Hence we are at the beginning of Decision 2012 before the new president-elect can even be sworn in.
1 person likes this
@nangel78 (1454)
• United States
10 Nov 08
I am not sure who will run. They will need to find someone who appeals to a broad base of people and will be a good candidate to put out there. I think only time will tell on who they can bring out.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Nov 08
This kind of patience sounds good to me!
1 person likes this
@cripfemme (7698)
• United States
9 Nov 08
I can't believe people are already talking about this. How insane! And Sarah Palin as president? Whatever... I know more about most things than she does!
• United States
11 Nov 08
Yep, the new national conversation has begun. I take it you would favor some sort of restrictions on the overall timeframe for national elections?
1 person likes this
@jonesy123 (3948)
• United States
9 Nov 08
I haven't even thought about it yet. However, what I have been wondering is whether Obama will take two years plus again to campaign. He pretty much ignored his duties as a senator for that time-frame. Illinois people should be quite angry about that. They only had half the representation in the senate, lol. So, will he ignore his presidential duties, too, to win re-election?
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Nov 08
Presidents running for reelection typically take advantage of the "bully pulpit" to avoid such a situation. As incumbents, they have much less need to press the flesh on the campaign trail.
1 person likes this
@evanslf (484)
10 Nov 08
I think it is ridiculous for the Republicans to be talking of 2012 at this point. A lot depends on how Obama performs and what happens in the mid terms in 2010. The names mentioned don't seem to me to offer an easy road back for the Republicans. As Xfactor has said, the Repubicans will need to return to traditional Republican values and select a candidate that best represents these values if they want to have any chance in 2012, and even then they will also be dependent on Obama making a mess of things, which is far from certain.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Nov 08
Actually, I'm thinking that Republicans may need to conduct a conversation about what their values really are. Or maybe the conversation needs to be about encouraging more diversitiy of opinion. Many Republicans I know are none too happy with the party or its agenda during the past 8 years. Indeed, John McCain is likely to be found near the head of that line. Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I appreciate your comments.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
10 Nov 08
I think Mike Huckabee would be the best choice. I do like Sarah Palin and I think that she has been unjustly attacked. Those staff members who said she did not know Africa was a continent, and talked about her clothing budget, were discontented and just plain lied. I think that fake call was a put on by someone to make her look bad and it is amazing how many idiots here believed everything bad about her. If she really was that incompetent and ignorant it would have been in the Christian news articles as they give the truth. I think that the Republican party went too far to appease the secularists, and it has to get back to its roots, and have a traditional value, strict right from wrong. It can no longer be a faux Republican party, it has to be what it was in Ronald Reagan's term.
• United States
11 Nov 08
Thanks for commenting! It strikes me that Ronald Reagan would urge the party to change as a matter of principle--in order to meet the challenges of the present, not of the past. That is what I think Reagan did for the party. He was, in my opinion, an idealistic pragmatist--both as a Democrat and as a Republican.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Nov 08
Yes, we are already talking about it. I do not believe all the lies about Sarah Palin so I am in her court. The only people who believe those lies are the ones who want to. I think candidates should not be able to use to so much money for elections. Obama bought his with all that money...not saying that it is the only way he got in, but it goes hand in hand.
• United States
11 Nov 08
So many spending limits as well as time limits should be a part of our discussion on how the political process should go forward next time around.
1 person likes this
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
10 Nov 08
It doesn't really matter - I'm sure all of the Obama supporters that voted for him this year will undoubtedly vote for him again in 2012 and he'll be in for another term.
• United States
11 Nov 08
I hope Obama's support for a second term won't be given that easily. I'd rather see him work for that support in a more substantial way. Thanks for participating!
1 person likes this
@murderistic (2278)
• United States
9 Nov 08
There is no way that the republican party is going to elect Sarah Palin after Fox news claiming that she thought Africa was a country and that she didn't know what countries were a part of NAFTA... and that she had temper tantrums after watching unfavorable news reports about her. There is just no way. I honestly think that Mike Huckabee is probably the best choice, although, I'm an independent and will have absolutely no say.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Nov 08
Thanks for voicing your opinions. That's an vital part of the political process. Thanks also for stating your opinions with courtesy and openness--not to mention passion. Would that these characteristics were more prevalent in our political discussions.
1 person likes this