Response to Post #6
Pick someone's #6 post to respond to. I advise picking someone who you disagree with on some level so you'll have more to say. You should focus your response their analysis of 1 or 2 of the potential presidential candidates rather than addressing all of their points. Please use research to back up your points (remember wikipedia doesn't count). Also remember civility is important.
I look forward to reading your responses.
Please respond by Friday, December 10th.
posted by maby-keirstead @ 12:24 PM
28 Comments:
In response to Caitlin:
Sarah Palin’s Alaska ratings may have risen, but I can’t say much the same for the woman herself (1). According to a recent Gallup poll, Sarah Palin’s ratings have plummeted to an all time low. Huffington Post reported that Palin’s approval ratings had dropped to 40% in October, which are the lowest approval ratings that she has had since she has become a national political figure. While running for the vice president, her approval rating was a higher 53% (2). I believe that the lower percentages can be attributed to her association with the Tea Party. Don’t get me wrong, as a fellow Republican, I like the Tea Party. However, I am not overtly enthusiastic about it. Palin is associated with a Party which is not considered to be moderate. As a result, this alienates some groups of voters, and raises concerns for other groups. In addition, 7/10 in a CNN opinion research poll believe that Palin is not qualified and appealing enough to become president (3). I hate to say it Caitlin, but my idea also concurs. I wish for the Republicans to win, but I personally feel that we can put forth a better person than Palin for the job. I do agree with your idea that Jon A. Greenspon would also be an ideal candidate to put forth to the Democrats. I don’t believe he will have much of a chance against incumbents who have gained more visibility. What I would like to say is this: Sarah Palin may not be the easiest to defeat, but I believe she is one of the easier to defeat. The only reason I feel she will be less easy to defeat than the others is because she has visibility, unlike emerging Greenspon. The polls show that 48% of people would rather have Obama reelected than Palin for president. What’s shocking about this (and not so shocking all at the same time), is that many voters approval for Obama has fallen but constituents still prefer Obama. Sarah Palin simply isn’t going to win: The unbiased polls have it.
1.) http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/live-feed/surprise-sarah-palins-ratings-rise-54830
2.)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/sarah-palins-ratings-plum_n_323589.html
3.)http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/28/seven-in-10-say-palin-not-qualified-to-be-president/
My response to Savannah: While Huckabee and Romney are both very well known in the Republican Party, this does not mean that they would be good candidates for the GOP’s Presidential nominee in 2012. Romney has already run for a presidential nomination once in 2008, and obviously didn’t win the Presidency; much less secure a nomination from his own party (1). Romney has also attacked the important START II Treaty, which can be easily seen by many as blocking progress since the treaty would make the world much safer (2). Another crucial aspect to consider when trying to figure out if Romney could even get the nomination would be his religion. Mr. Romney is a Mormon, and that is highly unappealing to the large constituency of Evangelicals that Romney needs to appeal to, to ensure a victory in a Presidential election (5).
Huckabee has his own Fox TV show, but viewers have been cited as calling it ‘cheesy’ (3). Mr. Huckabee appears to not be taken very seriously by members of his own party and he also only really appeals to one specific group within the GOP; the Evangelical Christians (3). He was a pastor at two different Baptist churches in his home state of Arkansas before getting involved with politics (4), and this doesn’t reflect well on him in terms of getting any votes from moderates or even moderate Republicans. Did I mention that Mr. Huckabee actually raised taxes while he was governor (3)? No? Well forgive me, that’s pretty important because that little detail would undoubtedly be brought up if he were ever to speak about his policies in public. Raising taxes is only 180 degrees away from what the GOP has always intended to do.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/us/politics/18repubs.html?_r=1&ref=mike_huckabee
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/opinion/02douthat.html?ref=mike_huckabee
3. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2010/12/why_doesnt_mike_huckabee_get_a.html
4. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/mike_huckabee/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=mike%20huckabee&st=cse
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/us/politics/07romney.html?ref=mormons_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latterday_saints
Responding to "eSass"
I strongly disagree with your opinion that the Republican Party should avoid nominating Sarah Palin. Seeing as how I am a moderate who tends to support Democrats (so, if my favorite talking head, Glenn Beck, were to describe me, he'd say my political views are something along the lines of being simultaneously fascist and communist), it makes perfect sense for the GOP to nominate Sarah Palin. Seeing as how many moderate voters leaned to the Democrats in the 2006 election (1) and again pushed the Dems to victory in 2008 (2), there is no better way to make sure Obama gets a second term in the Oval Office than to have Sarah Palin be his challenger!
Also, eSass, your "liberals think that she's unqualified" argument is irrelevant because Sarah Palin is not liberal, and for the most part, people are never going to say they think someone ideologically opposite from them are fit to be in office.
Because I am a fan of what the Tea Party calls Democratic Socialism, which includes, but is not limited to: legislation holding banks more responsible for irresponsible lending practices (3), more private sector jobs being created in 2010 than any year under the Bush Administration (4), and the newest version of the START Treaty, which will prohibit both the US and Russia from employing nuclear arsenals of over 1,550 warheads or 700 launchers (5); I would hate to see a viable Republican contender like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee steal away the presidency so they can widen our budget deficit by cutting taxes and raising spending.
Sources
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701805.html
(2) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/30/what_voters_meant.html
(3) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008835-503544.html
(4) http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/
(5) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/world/europe/09prexy.html?_r=2
In response to Val:
While I absolutely agree with your statement that Sarah Palin should not run for president, as well as the ways in which the Republicans should prepare for the 2012 Race, I am having trouble agreeing with your choice for whom the Republicans should put forward for the 2012 election.
You said that the Republicans should nominate Mike Huckabee for the 2012 presidential race. I don’t agree with this for a few reasons. First of all, Huckabee already ran to put on the Republican ticket in the 2008 election, and lost to John McCain (1). If Huckabee was a desired candidate I believe he would have been chosen over McCain in 2008. Of course, 2012 will be different with different contenders for the race, but I still think Huckabee had his shot at the nomination and didn’t get it in 2008. Besides, history shows us that people who try to run for president too many times (okay, more specifically, Henry Clay) don’t have much success. Granted, 2012 would only be Huckabee’s second shot at the presidency as opposed to the four times Henry Clay ran. Still, I think the Republican Party should get some new blood running for the nomination, and ultimately for the presidency.
Although you pointed out that forty-two percent see Huckabee favorably, that is still less than half the population. Also, that is only six percentage points up from Sarah Palin’s approval rating: thirty-six percent (2). President Obama’s current approval rating is only forty-five percent, considered, not much higher than the percentage of those favoring Huckabee (2). When looking at the approval ratings for Palin and Obama in comparison to Huckabee, I would say that his approval rating isn’t much to write home about. Sure, it could be worse but I would give it more credit if it were above the fifty percent mark. I think it is also important to point out that although Huckabee is relatively popular and well known, the fact that he is known as a pro-government governor does not sit well with the GOP (2). Although you say this could help him, I think, if it upsets the Party as an organization, he wont find himself lucky during the nomination process.
After reading some articles, it just seems that Huckabee is a conceited type of guy. In July 2010, he stated, "I'm the Republican that clearly, at this point, does better against Obama than any other Republican. You know, I'm not totally unaware of that” (1). To me, this comment just seems vain. He also stated bluntly, “I just don't understand how it is that a person can read these polls day after day and the narrative is constantly everybody but me” (3). All I can think of to say in response to that is, whiny much? I don’t think the Republicans should put forward someone who seems so self-indulged. Granted, I have come to this conclusion via two quotes and, my knowledge of Mike Huckabee is minimal, but I think it says a lot about a public figure when they complain about how much they’re name comes up in the news.
Other than your choice of Mike Huckabee as whom the Republicans should nominate, I agree with your blog post. I really liked the quote you have from Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour when you were discussing what the Republicans should do leading up to the election. I also enjoyed your Sarah Palin quotes when describing why she would be the worst person for the Republicans to nominate and agreed with all of your information on that point as well.
(1)http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2012-republican-presidential-candidates-abc-news-guidebook/story?id=12164311
(2)http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/06/845869/pollster-nc-might-pick-obama-in.html
(3) http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/06/huckabee-draws-contrasts-between-him-and-palin/?iref=storysearch
In response to everyone who said that the Republicans should put Tim Pawlenty forth in 2012 (Dr. Brian the Blogger, Abby, Britta, EmmaBee, Monica, Emma G, bmac, Kristin, and J. Sengly). Yes. I am brave enough to take all 9 of you on in one post. And to Ms. Aby, I promise civility. Read on.
I strongly disagree that Tim Pawlenty is the best candidate in 2012. As one source put it...”The Pawlenty legacy: A $6.2 billion deficit (1). This is the greatest deficit in Minnesota’s 152 year history. While the state will have $399 million in the bank at the end of this legislative session this money mainly comes from an unexpected extension of federal medicaid to aid the states(1). Also, this past year leaders depended on Federal Funding which will disappear in the next year (2) Not only is there a budget deficit but Pawlenty also illegally cut spending in 2009 in an attempt to balance the budget. To get back on track Pawlenty states that his successor must create no new taxes; make cuts in public employee pensions and compensation; and restructure government services; plus make drastic cuts in state health care spending(1). This is strikingly similar to what Pawlenty preached in 2003 when he was first elected governor. Case in point, Pawlenty really hasn’t gotten that much done(1). While it is true that Pawlenty worked with a Democrat run House and Senate for both his terms, some of the items on his agenda are within the executives control.
On top of all his budget problems, it appears that Pawlenty is not as popular as he once was. Pawlenty’s current approval rating in the state of Minnesota is around 42%, his lowest rating ever (3), and another recent poll shows that if Pawlenty was to run against Obama in 2012 he would lose the Minnesota race by a 51%-43% margin (4). The republican candidate with the best showing in 2012....Mitt Romney who would lose to Obama with a 47%-42% margin (4). This may not be surprising due to the states strong democratic voting history, but the state has been generous to Minnesotants in the past being the only state the Walter Mondale carried in the 1984 Reagan landslide.
Tim Pawlenty also doesn’t help the GOP’s appeal to Southern voters, and he has fairly limited national experience, except for a short stint as the Chairman of the National Governor’s Association from 2007-2008 (5). Minnesota also doesn’t hold a lot of clout in the GOP so a candidate from a more prominent or Southern state may be more appealing (5). Finally, Pawlenty is under fire for pardoning a sex offender who is now facing new allegations of abusing his own daughter more than 250 times before and after he was exonerated in 2008 (6). This could become a grave issue for Pawlenty’s campaign if he continues to be in the running. While I’m all about giving Minnesota some love on the national stage, I don’t think that Pawlenty has a chance to unseat Obama in 2012. The GOP would be much better off nominating someone with more political clout in the South, or who is more well-known on the national stage.
This concludes my rant.
(1)http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/111290929.html?page=3&c=y
(2)http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/12/02/state-budget-forecast/
(3)http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2010/03/tim_pawlenty_job_approval_rati. php
(4)http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/ppp-poll-pawlenty-trails-obama-in-minnesota----and-romney-does-better.php
(5)http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/08/twelve-2012-tim-pawlenty
(6)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/03/tim-pawlenty-pardon-jeremy-giefer_n_791618.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
In response to Caitlin: DON’T TAKE THIS PERSONAL PLEASE AND THANK YOU
P.S. I got into Northwestern and Kathy Carrrrrrrr didn't..Sorry Kathy you will just have to settle with Cornell! Party with Anne!
I believe that you are incorrect with your decision to have Sarah Palin run for President in 2012. If she ran it would be a landslide victory for President Obama. It is very tough for anyone to beat an incumbent, and I believe that it would be nearly impossible for her to win. It would almost be a threat if she ran for President. Number one she has never completed a term in her life. She alos has made many blunders and slip-ups along the trail. (1). She has mixed up North Korea and Korea numerous times. Many people think that she is an airhead. I believe that she needs to stay in her vast land state because there is no need for her in the Federal Government. Her policies that she has created may work for Alaska, but it won’t work for the National Government because the population of Alaska is only 626,932 people. (3). She did reduce taxes, and solve great problems in Alaska, yet they won’t work for the National government (2). According to the Economist, 34% of Americans believe that she would be unfavorably as a presidential candidate. You are correct when you say that she already has National attention, yet you are wrong when you say that it will be really easy for her to win because many people see her as an airhead who doesn’t know that much about politics. Many people just see her as a person who knows more about hunting and fishing, other than politics, and the daily tasks of being a president. Understanding that she has never finished a complete term of office, how can we as American’s see her completing a term of office as the President?
You also say that she brings a fresh face to the Republican Party. I have to disagree with you here as well because I feel that many people of the Republican party don’t like her. (4). Many people see her As erratic. (4). Would you really want her signing bills, and giving her own signature statement for each bill, when she continually messes up with North Korea and South Korea. Next thing you know she will be messing up tax cuts with increases in taxes, or Alaska with Russia?
Nothing against you Caitlin, but I do not agree with you on this one. Sarah Palin would be the weakest person that the Republican Party could endorse for the 2012 presidential campaign.
Sources:
(1) http://www.economist.com/node/17629651?story_id=17629651
(2) http://www.biography.com/articles/Sarah-Palin-360398?part=1
(3) http://www.50states.com/alaska.htm
(4) http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/16/why-sarah-palin-is-bad-for-the-gop/
My Response to Kristen
I don’t think Tim Pawlenty is a good candidate for 2012 at all. Republicans normally stand for less government spending, and taxes. While Pawlenty has championed “compromise” with Democrats while he has served, his ways of “compromising” must be examined. In 2010 budgeting session Pawlenty was taken to the Supreme Court by using unallotment powers to balance the budget. The Minnesota Supreme Court found this unconstitutional. (1) Democrats and the media should use this as ammunition to show that America can’t have a president that tramples all over the constitution. This is not even the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to issues Pawlenty will have to deal with if he runs in 2012.
Tim Pawlenty’s policies have created the largest budget deficit in state history (2). He will leave a 5.6 billion dollar deficit for 2011. (2) He cut spending in 2010 so the state would be in the black with delays in spending becoming due next year, further ballooning the deficit to historic proportions. Pawlenty has run around taking credit for this year’s surplus, but will leave the mess for his successors and the people of Minnesota. (2)
I am not say Pawlenty is the anti-Christ he has done some good things as governor. He has kept the state unemployment rate 2.7% below the national average. (2) He was leader of the Republican Governors Association. He has lowered the rate at which the state budget has increased. In the end though I think because of the ways he cut the budget and the deficit that will occur after he leaves office. These faults will make it difficult to win the nomination next in 2012.
(1) Let’s Consider the Pawlenty Legacy A 6.2 billion deficit
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/111290929.html?page=2&c=y
(2) Pawlenty responds to Supreme Court ruling on constitutional unallotment
http://minnesotaindependent.com/58454/state-supreme-court-rules-against-pawlenty-unallotments
Sorry Caitlin, but you're the only one who thought that Sarah Palin would be a good choice, and as I said in my blog, the Republicans should NOT nominate her if they want to win, so I'll have to disagree with you.
Sarah Palin would NOT be a smart choice for the Republican Party to endorse. Though she may be popular in her own section of the party, she is too conservative for most Republicans let alone the American public. According to a Public Policy Polling blog, “Republicans may hate Barack Obama but there look to be a pretty meaningful percentage of them who don't hate him enough to vote to put Sarah Palin in the White House” (1). She also has less political worth than her supporters would have you believe. Her resume includes mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (A town of less than 11,000 people (3)), and Governor of Alaska, until resigning 18 months before the end of her term to pursue a profession in television. Though she condemns the “liberal media” and “gotcha” reporting, she worked as a correspondent for FOX News and is now starring in a reality TV show about her life in Alaska. I don't mean to berate her for her character, just for her over emphasis of the media she so denounces.
Caitlin stated in her blog that “To gain a large advantage going into the 2012 elections the republicans who were recently elected should be doing all that they can to try and fix the budget issues that are currently plaguing the economy.” I don't think this is enough, in a recent CBS news poll asking what issue the new Congress should concentrate on first, 56% said “Economy and jobs”, while only 14% said “Budget deficit/National debt” (2) . I think that though balancing the budget is important, it isn't as important as creating new jobs for the unemployed. When the Great Depression struck our nation and unemployment rates soared, FDR used federal money to create new jobs and get Americans spending money to fund our economy. Why should our recession be any different?
Caitlin also said that Palin's “fresh perspective” is popular in America based on the midterm results, and could help her in her bid for the Republican nomination, I disagree. Just because a few members of the Tea Party were elected in their states, doesn't mean that she will be popular enough among the entire nation to win the Presidency.
(1) http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254843/polling-palin-2012-katrina-trinko?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
(2) http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
(3) http://www.city-data.com/city/Wasilla-Alaska.html
In response to Rachel:
I disagree with you that Mitch Daniels would be the most successful presidential candidate for the Republicans in 2012. Although he is a popular governor in Indiana, I don't think the rest of America would be as supportive of many of his stances on the issues.
To fix Social Security, Daniels has advocated raising the retirement age and using a means-tested program to reduce costs [1]. I personally think these are very practical ideas, but I don't think that retired people or people that plan to retire soon will vote for him if he includes this in his campaign. Senior citizens have been a historic stronghold for Republicans in the past, so losing this group would be devastating for the chances that the Republicans could beat Obama.
Daniels has also criticized the Environmental Protection Agency and has proposed that there be a curb in environmental regulation [1]. While people that live in Indiana support this because of their agricultural techniques, many Americans are very concerned about the environment [2]. Protecting the environment used to be something only Democrats wanted to make part of federal policy, but now it has began to appeal to a much broader amount of Americans. This could take more votes away from the Republicans in 2012.
Although I don't think Daniels is the best candidates for the Republicans at the moment, there are some promising things that I can see helping him if he does decide to run. As you mentioned, he has revolutionized Indiana's budget, which shows that he could be able to fix the country's budget deficit too. His policies are strongly favored in his state and his party did very well in the midterm elections for the state legislature, regaining the majority in the House and achieving a super majority in the Senate [3]. Also, his plan for education reform has recently been approved by a bipartisan panel, which could also make him popular with Americans if it is successful [4].
Overall, I don't think Governor Daniels is the best candidate for the Republicans at the moment, but he's not the worst either. Personally, he fits my views nearly perfectly and I think he could fix our country's economy, but I think he might get some opposition, especially for his plans for Social Security.
Nice job on your post!!
1)http://heraldbulletin.com/business/x278368470/Daniels-talks-of-presidential-issues
2)http://www.hoosieragtoday.com/wire/news/01159_daniels_223749.php
3)http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101123/NEWS02/311230086
4)http://www.indystar.com/article/20101209/NEWS04/12090426/1001/LOCAL0104/?odyssey=nav%7Chead
In Response to Britta (since everyone is responding to Caitlin’s):
For the next presidential race you thought that the two greatest candidates for the Republican to choose were Mike Pence, and Tim Pawlenty. I must admit, I had never heard of Mike Pence before so I had to do a little research: Representative Mike Pence is definitely favored by a solid group of voters. I read article after article talking about how many republicans love how Pence has an “unapologetic and confident defense of the Judeo-Christian world view” (1). They also like him because to voters Pence has a “Reagan-like ability to bring economic, national security, and social conservatives together in a winning coalition” (1). Not only that but he has a friendly and funny personality which can be seen with a quote he made about his conservative view “just because I’m a conservative doesn’t mean I have to be a bad mood about it” (1). Also there was an article in Politics Daily which talks about how just the reason that Pence is not Palin, yet he still has the same people who like her like him, could make him a strong force against President Obama (2).
I agreed with you on Mike Pence, however, on the other hand I do not exactly agree with on you on Tim Pawlenty. First of all I don’t think that Pawlenty has done enough, and I think that he is hardly known outside of Minnesota. In the recent poll from Public Policy Polling, they show that Mitt Romney is favored more then Pawlenty. Romney was only five points away from President Obama (47-42), while Pawlenty was eight points (51-43) (3). But I must credit that Pawlenty has an 89% approval rating among republicans, but among the Democrats he has an 89% disapproval rating (3). This is the highest it has ever been for any Republican that is not Sarah Palin (3). Tim Pawlenty may do well among republican voters, but he would definitely not be getting any democratic voters on his side.
1. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2010/12/why_mike_pence_will_run_in_201.html
2. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/02/why-mike-pence-could-steal-sarah-palins-thunder/
3.http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/111554339.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUgOy9cP3DieyckcUsI?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUgOy9cP3DieyckcUsI
This comment has been removed by the author.
In Response to Caitlin:
I have to disagree with you statement that Sarah Palin would be the best presidential candidate for 2012. Sarah Palin is considered one of the worst politicians because of her low standard in politics. I think one of the few things that Democrats and Republicans will agree on is that Sarah Palin is not a good candidate. She is currently a reality TV star seeking popularity, which I think destroys her very little reputation she has after losing her reputation on the media during the 2008 Presidential election.
Her approval rating in 2007 was 93% but it has declined to 56% in 2009; her approval rating is going down because people are realizing how much worthless she is to be in politics running for one of the high leading position in American government. I agree with you that she is one of the well known people in politics, but that is not good enough for a candidate to run for the president. Her countless amounts of mistakes in the media and her inability to even name a founding father makes her look like incapable candidate for running for president. Yes lot for people do know her but lot of them have negative views on her. She is also involved in the Tea Party movement which is causing a bit of trouble for the Republicans and I think most of the Republicans are not in favor of her even if she was a good candidate and her chances of being elected won’t be larger. Most republicans think she wouldn’t be a good candidate and candidates like Huckabee, Pawlentey are all racing for the nomination and her chance of being nominated I think is low and her chance of defeating Obama i think is very close to impossible.
Sources:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/071709morning-fix-winners-and.html#more
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/25/politics/main7089486.shtml
http://www.economist.com/node/17629651?story_id=17629651
I respectively disagree with LClark. I don’t think Marco Rubio should be the candidate that the Republicans put forward for President in 2012. However, he could potentially be a good Vice President. Senator Rubio won a senate seat in Florida with ease which shows that he is in good favor with the people. One aspect that helps Senator Rubio is the fact that he is a moderate Tea Party member. Republicans relate more with Marco Rubio than other more radical Tea Party members. "Marco Rubio is the first Tea Party candidate I've come across who I'd actually consider voting for" (1). Despite his well-liked ideas, and his moderate membership to the Tea Party, he is still a novice. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York, a Republican, referred to Marco Rubio as "new blood" and "the future of our party” (4). The timing wouldn’t be right for him to run for President in 2012, because he was just elected into the Senate and only recently introduced to the White House. Marco Rubio could make a strong Vice President with his strong credentials, and his squeaky clean Washington record (2). He is only 39 years old, and has plenty of time to gain experience for elections to come (3).
1.http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/11/the_marco_rubio_for_president.php
2.http://theweek.com/article/index/208918/will-marco-rubio-run-for-president-in-2012
3.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100061892/midterm-elections-2010-does-marco-rubio-have-the-makings-of-a-us-president/
4.http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/06/marco-rubio-for-president-in-2012/
In response to Brian:
I agree with Brian on his first point that the Republicans need to find a candidate that appeal to a variety of people. We can see how with the recent compromise, on tax reform, got the democrats revolting against Mr. Obama. This show the importance of a strong party agenda and unified face.[1] This could also show how the Republicans need to put someone forward that is a dramatic change away from the Democrat agenda, and less moderate. [2]
However I disagree with Brian on second question. I do not think that former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty would be a good fit for the Republican nomination. Because although he has the typical Republican stances such as being distraught about the latest healthcare legislation., but just because he was able to win a historically democratic state does not give him the kind of experience and credibility needed to be president [3] However, I do think he could be a possible front runner of the possible Republican candidates.
I also disagree with Brain on his opinion on the third question. As I said before I think that Sarah Palin would be a stronger candidate then most people credit her with. He says that Palin is to “dumb” to run our country however I would have to disagree. This is an ad hominem tactic that many take regarding Palin. I think to have taken the Tea Party and make into a national movement the way she has taken a very intellectual individual Richard Land, a longtime social conservative leader, said "She[Palin] can be a serious contender," [4]
[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703493504576007462890735264.html
[2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/most-americans-say-they-re-worse-off-under-obama-poll-shows.html
[3] http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2010/12/08/can-tim-pawlenty-win-the-gop-presidential-nomination.aspx
[4] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/16/president_palins_long_odds_in_2012_104420.html
In response to Lexi:
I disagree that Marco Rubio should become the Republican candidate for the 2012 election because Rubio is a more conservative candidate that falls more along the radical, Tea Party lines, and many voters are more moderate and less likely to lean that far right. Right now the Republican Party is divided between the Moderates, and the more radical Tea-Party members. The Republican Party needs to find a candidate that can unite the party, and I’m not sure a dark horse that ability.
Perhaps if the Republicans decide on a front-runner and bring a lot of attention to that candidate, the voters could unite behind them. Marco Rubio has been called “the standard-bearer of the Republican Party’s future” (2) but he needs to get out there more if he hopes to get the attention of the conservative voters.
Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney are gaining a lot of press to help their potential campaigns by gaining congressional support by funneling money into PACs to support congressional candidates that they support and who share similar views (3). Many of the other potential candidates have more experience and ties within the government, and this gives them more press and connections with voters and officials to get their name out there and have the voters hearing about them.
While Marco Rubio has more hard core conservatives backing him (1), it is important that candidates appeal to a wider voter base. The majority of American voters are more moderate or do not associate with the Democrats or Republicans, and a more radically conservative candidate could push away moderate voters in the 2012 election. Rubio was successful on the grassroots level, gaining support and campaign money from locals, but there is not much evidence saying he can spread his appeal nationally. Marco Rubio needs to show Americans that he can appeal to the majority of them, and not just rely on his local support.
1) http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Marco_Rubio
2) http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/12/10-power-players-new-congress-marco-rubio-claire-mccaskill-/1
3) http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/02/the-left-and-the-coming-fiscal-crisis-get-in-the-game-before-it/
4) http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/19/1934882/20m-offers-look-into-rubio-supporters.html
In response to the very handsome and charismatic J.Sengly:
I would have to disagree with your viewpoint that either Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney would make excellent Republican nominees for the 2012 presidential race. When it comes to Romney, I truly believe his religion plays too big of a factor in order to get him all the way to the White House (1). As for Pawlenty, his roaming around the country/recent spreading of his name will not do much good when voters [hopefully] would look into his background/what he did for Minnesota (2). During his time as governor of MN, Pawlenty created a $6.2 billion deficit in the state (2). His promised of tax cuts may have put smiles on Minnesotan’s faces, but the aftermath should be a look of horror. Pawlenty pronounced this $6.2 deficit "very manageable.” (3). In my opinion, $6.2 million is beyond reasonable…make it $6.2 BILLION and my head hurts. That is not someone I would want running my country, or even on the ballot for the Republicans.
I would have to strongly agree though that Sarah Palin is NOT the answer. In your statement, “Her popularity with Republican voters and fund raising ability are the sole reasons she should ever be considered by the Republican party as a potential presidential candidate.”, you summed up my opinion perfectly.
Well done, I’ll see your smiling face in class tomorrow! Don’t forget about the quiz!
(1) http://www.ontheissues.org/mitt_romney.htm
(2) http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Tim_Pawlenty
(3) http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/111290929.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUvDEhiaE3miUsZ
In response to my desk buddy caitlinF:
I would have to disagree with you when you say that Sarah Palin would be the strongest Republican Candidate. In your post, you say that she was “begun to make the case for her record of achievement”. I have compiled her record:
Wasilla City Council (town of roughly 500 residents) in 1992. One term.
Mayor of Wasilla in 1996. Two terms
Governor of Alaska in 2006. Did not complete her term.
When you look closer you can see that some of her other “achievements” really aren’t really anything special at all. Her trademark “bridge to nowhere” was supposedly a monument to her ability to stop frivolous spending and earmarks. However, Palin actually supported the $442-million earmark for the bridge, even running in 2006 with a “build the bridge” plank on her platform. However when others would not approve, she abandoned the project, then took credit for removing the wasteful spending. Oh yeah, and she never gave back the $442 million in federal transportation funds.
You also say that she has the advantage of national attention, but in this case it is not a good thing. The more press coverage she has received, the lower her approval ratings have become. They went from being around 93% in 2007 (sometimes called America’s favorite governor) to less that 50% currently. She was popular as the Dark Horse but now that she has been put under the public’s magnifying glass, people see her inexperience and the bizarre nature of her behavior. You said that she has already faced many public criticisms, but those criticisms still exist and she will still have to face more.
I do agree that Jon Greenspon is a poor choice for a candidate; however, he does not realistically have a chance of getting on the ticket. This man is virtually unknown to the average voter (he doesn’t even have a website!). However, people know Sarah Palin, unfortunately for her she in known more infamously than famously. If republicans want to win and want to be taken seriously as a Major party, they should stay away from Sarah Palin.
In Response to Caitlyn,
I thought it was very interesting how you chose Sarah Palin as the Republican’s top choice as presidential candidate. I have to say that I don’t agree with you. I noticed that one of the main reasons you thought she would be a good candidate was because she already had a lot of publicity and was very well know. This is true, but I believe that the media attention she has gotten has put a very negative view of her into the public’s eyes. Many people think of her as a joke. I’m sure that when the majority of Americans think of Sarah Palin they think of Tina Fey and “I can see Russia from my house.” I think she is trying too hard to get attention. One great example of this is her new reality TV show about her life in Alaska(3). Also, according to some, she forced her daughter Bristol Palin to compete in Dancing with the Stars, because Sarah Palin thought that Bristol ruined the last election for her. He plan was to make Bristol a beloved star, which would in turn make the American people love her as well(2). This is not a strategy I would want a future president to take. I also don’t see how your last comment, about how she has already faced a lot of criticism in her last campaign for vice president, could be a positive. Maybe she would be mentally stronger and ready to handle it? I believe all of that criticism scared her and her reputation, and will make it very difficult for her to have any chance in coming elections. According to a poll 71% of Americans do not want Sarah Palin to run for president in 2012, and 41% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Sarah Palin(1).
Sources:
(1)http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6113291-503544.html
(2)http://www.mediaite.com/online/sarah-palin-forced-bristol-to-do-dancing-with-the-stars-claims-margaret-cho/
(3)http://media.www.lcctorch.com/media/storage/paper1259/news/2010/12/02/Opinion/Reality.Tv.Or.Campaign.Ad-3963586.shtml
Response to David:
I do not think that Bobby Jindal would be the best candidate for the Republicans to put forward for the 2012 presidential elections. I agree with you that the fact that he is young and ethnic is very favorable. It would make him more comparable to Obama, so that could help to gain some votes. However, I am not sure that this is the type of person that the Republicans will want to have since Republican voters are more likely to be older and Caucasian. Also, while Jindal as been very successful in all sorts of governmental positions, I do not think that he is very well known. A very important part of campaigning is name recognition and I don’t think that many Americans citizens are familiar with his name compared to some other leading possible candidates. Jindal is a very strong conservative. For example, he strongly opposes abortion and same-sex marriage and is very supportive of tax cuts, teacher-led prayer in schools, and more severe punishment for criminals(1). Another example of his conservativeness can be found in his statement that Sarah Palin is “absolutely electable” in 2012 (who you said would be the least electable)(3). This could help to gain support from stalwart Republican voters, but could make other more moderate Republicans waver. You described Jindal as “charismatic” but in what I have seen of him I would not agree. His speech was fine, but he doesn’t seem to be an excellent speaker(2). A source I found also said that Jindal had decided against running in the 2012 elections and is running for governor again instead, but things could change(3). I think that Jindal does possess many qualities that would be good for the Republican candidate, but I would not say that he is the best option.
1. http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Bobby_Jindal.htm
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAHRKlh7RQ
3. http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2010/12/bobby-jindal-says-palin-is-absolutely-electable-in-2012/
Originally this was a whole hearted rebuttal to Katie Carr, who argued Mississippi governor Haley Barbour would be the GOP’s ideal candidate. Then I had a nightmare in which Governor Barbour became president and turned out to be a cross between of Mr. Jones of Animal Farm and Mr. McGregor of Peter Rabbit. It involved Rubik’s Cubes and Klister. The point being I was forced to admit that some of the information I had found and read from Katie’s original post was rather compelling, so I appended and edited my blog post to be less “guaranteed defeat”-y and more “has flaws despite chance at candidacy”-y. Therefore, I take no responsibility for subject-verb disagreements, jarring changes in voice, or incoherent logic. As to who should? Won’t it be fun for you to imagine the answer on your own?
While I agree with Katie and the Newseek article she cited that post-2008 conventional wisdom about Republicans needing to radically redefine themselves (“Unrecognizable + cool + Hispanics + Twitter + being nice to gays + Facebook”) is no longer relevant (1), I think there have been changes in politics which make Governor Barbour an inadvisable choice for the Republicans. The reasons I don’t think he’s a good idea are outlined below, hopefully bolded so I don’t get any vicious frowning smiles from Dr. Brian.
No Washington insiders
The Republicans’ last campaign was based largely in Sarah Palin and John McCain being political ‘mavericks,’ untamed by party politics or the cigar smoking men in Washington (4). The Tea Party has maintained the image of an ideal politician being ‘rouge’ with its collective endorsement of Sarah Palin and its pervasive grumbling about ‘big government.’ And with Obama the incumbent and representing the epitome of “on the inside,” it certainly makes sense for Republicans to cast themselves as apart from established government. If Sarah Palin is the Republican base’s ideal of a presidential candidate, Haley Barbour is anything but. According to TIME, “Barbour is one of the chief builders and beneficiaries of the insider Beltway power structure that helped spawn the Tea Party. That puts him at odds with the most energized segment of the GOP, led by potential 2012 rival Sarah Palin” (5). He has a long history of high-ranking government positions- currently chairman of the Governors Association, he has served as chairman of the RNC, campaign adviser to George H.W. Bush, and director of political office in Reagan White House (3). In my opinion, this largely disqualifies him from massive initial Republican base support (although see “Caveat” below).
Extensive Political Record
We all saw how Democrats threw the VHS at Delaware candidate Christine O’Donnell this fall, wearing out the tapes of her expressing extremist views as part of previous political activism. With his history of partisan offices, there’s no question that running against Haley Barbour would give Democrats a veritable armory of press releases, quotes, and sound bites. The smear campaign is already running: the (actual) liberal media spent a week-long news cycle belaboring (Eh? Eh?) Governor Barbour’s defense of another southern governor, who omitted discussion of slavery from his confederate history month address. The coverage centered around an exciting sound bite- Barbour said criticism of the governor was “a nit, ... trying to make a big deal out of something that doesn't amount to diddly” (7). Again, though, check the “Caveat” at the bottom.
History of tobacco lobbying
If you want a good idea of a candidate’s chances within the Republican Party, look no further than Fox News’ “Twelve in 2012” election blog, which itself cites Barbour’s history as “a mega-lobbyist” (3). Now, Fox casts this as a positive (“But rather than just sitting back and watching the millions roll in, Barbour gave it up to lead his home state”), but in my experience calling someone a corporate lobbyist is about as down and dirty as one can get when campaigning- even when it’s not true. The governor was a founding partner of Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, a lobbying firm that in 1997 did $1.7 million of work for the tobacco industry (8) and in 2001 Fortune Magazine named the most powerful lobbying firm in America (9). This looks like attack ad fodder to me: just imagine Democrats following his name with “Haley Barbour, tobacco lobbyist….” It would be brutal.
Bush déjà vu
The GOP would have to have a Mission: Impossible mask to avoid comedic comparisons of Governor Barbour with defeated McCain and hated Bush on late-night television, SNL, and Comedy Central (2). He’s got McCain hair. He has a southern twang. And you’d be lying if you claimed he was thin: Even Fox’s 2012 election blog knocks Barbour because “his public persona is that of a self-described ‘fat redneck’” (3). The combination of Barbour’s image with his lobbyist, insider “image” makes, in my opinion, for an easy to defeat candidate.
Caveat (almost as good a word as "hiatus")- Sick wicked rhetoric and politicking
I think this is why I had my nightmare (10). Digging deeper into Katie’s sources made it clear that Governor Barbour has a history of success and the ability to accomplish what he wants. For all of his apparent appearance similarities to George Bush, he has a command of words that creates properly timed sentences that convey exactly what he means. Because of his long history in Washington Barbour has a massive network of contacts and effective political power. When Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, the governor was able to use his influence in Washington to speed federal relief to Mississippi. I really can’t do his charisma justice in this blog post; you should go read the TIME article I stole from Katie that I’m stealing all this information from (10). There’s a “long term” joke in here somewhere. I just need time to figure it out.
(1) http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/01/the-anti-obama.html
(2) http://images.politico.com/global/news/090520_barbour_ap_297.gif
(3) http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/05/twelve-2012-scorecard-haley-barbour
(4) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26456114/ns/politics-decision_08/
(5) http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2020798-2,00.html
(6) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/11/haley-barbour-defends-bob_n_533358.html
(7) http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/11/barbour-slavery-confederate/
(8) http://www.citizen.org/congress/article_redirect.cfm?ID=908
(9) http://www.bgrdc.com/about-history.html
(10) http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2020798-2,00.html
Runs away to Bemidji for the weekend
In response to Eric A:
I do not agree with your statement that he is more focused on basketball than the welfare of this country. On the slideshows we went through on Thursday it said that the president has many faces and has an extremely hard job to do.(1) Can we really expect him to just run the country with no down time and act like a robot? I don't feel like that is fair to him because people usually think clearer when they've had some time to just be themselves. Also you can't impeach him on the basis of playing basketball.(2) Another thing I disagree with Eric on is who the Republican party should put forward as their presidential candidate. Donald Trump would not be a good candidate for president right now. Someone who blames a $40 million dollar debt on God (3) can't be trusted with the welfare of our country. Also I find Donald to be creepy and his TV show isn't even that good. This year it opened with fewer than 4 million viewers, not very good.(4) Although I totally disagree with you in this past blog, I do agree that Sarah Palin would be the worst choice for the Republican Party. I think we can all figure that one out for ourselves though.
1) Ms. Aby's slideshows
2) The Constitution
3)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/business/05norris.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&sq=donald%20trump&st=cse&scp=8
4)http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2010/09/tv-ratings-the-apprentice-opens-weak-cbs-leads-thursday.html
In Response to Caitlin:
I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion that Sarah Palin would be a qualified Presidential nominee for the Republican Party in 2012. Palin resigned from her position as Governor of Alaska in July of this year saying she wasn't interested in finishing out her term just for the sake of it [1]. Instead, she has chosen to premiere her reality television show “Alaska” which has opened to much controversy and dwindling ratings [2]. Palin clearly exhibits a lack of dedication to being in government and seems to be more interested in the celebrity part of her life. Overall, she has demonstrated ineptitude for foreign policy, basic scientific understandings, what average Americans need and want, and the basic functions of our government [3].
One of the biggest flaws in your argument was when you stated, “She also already has the advantage of having national attention and recognition, which can be one of the most difficult steps when running for a public office. Especially when the candidate is running against a incumbent.” With this statement, you are missing the elephant in the room: the recognition Palin has earned is negative. Negative media attention is bad for politicians, not something that would help propel someone to presidency.
In the end, your argument doesn't consider polls either. A recent poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post found that 71% of Americans believe Palin is an unqualified candidate for President [4]. This statistic demonstrates Americans lack of faith in Palin, which means it is an incredible uphill journey for her if she is to make a bid in 2012.
I also disagree with your recommendation for who Obama would have the most success running against. Your arguments against Jon Greenspon are that he is from a small state and has relatively no political experience. Both of those attributes apply directly to your recommendation for the best option for the Republican nomination, Sarah Palin.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/03/AR2009070301738.html
[2] http://www.examiner.com/pet-rescue-in-national/controversy-follows-sarah-palin-clubbing-fish-to-death-on-reality-show
[3] http://www.alternet.org/story/104034/the_11_dumbest_things_sarah_palin_has_said_so_far/?page=1
[4] http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/80729-poll-71-say-palins-unqualified-to-be-president
In Response to Caitlin. I think Sarah Palin is the worst option for the Republican nomination. I don’t think that the national attention Sarah Palin is receiving is the kind of attention needed to win a presidential election. People may know who she is but I think that more for the stupid things she says, like mixing up North and South Korea.(1) Sarah Palin may be a face for the Tea party, but it seems she’s more interested in becoming a celebrity than being a politician. She has her own reality T.V show that’s ratings have gone up,(2) but this doesn’t mean she’d be a good candidate for president. People aren’t watching her show because they like her politics their watching it for entertainment, An entertaining T.V show is not a good campaign tool, because what people find entertaining tends to be people doing or saying stupid things. She’s not a politician she’s a reality star and author. Also she may have been governor of Alaska but she didn’t finish her term, and she already lost to Obama in 2008. If the Republicans want to win they can’t nominate Sarah Palin.
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/why-sarah-palins-north-ko_b_788647.html
(2) http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/live-feed/surprise-sarah-palins-ratings-rise-54830
Response to caitlinF:
Sorry Caitlin, nothing personal, but I’m feeling kinda lazy and I see your recommendation as easiest to counter.
Anyway, you recommended that Sarah Palin is whom the Republicans should nominate for their candidate in 2012. You say that she “seems to be taking steps to set up a campaign for the 2012 election by she has also begun to make the case for her record of achievement in Alaska at the local and state level.” This is in direct opposition to the facts of her political experience: she started off as a mayor, and when she moved up from there (to governor of Alaska), she quit in the middle of her term (1). Many people have interpreted this negatively, in ways such as “showing attitude towards her constituents” (2), “leaving Alaskans high and dry or being unable to do the job” (3), “nutty” (3), “makes no sense” (3), and “people don’t like a quitter” (3). Your point about her facing many criticisms since her bursting into the public view is a mixed one; you do have a point in that she has shown she can take criticism and keep on her path, but one has to wonder if her facing so many criticisms won’t just end up compounding upon each other, to the point where they overwhelm what credibility she has.
You do have an excellent point in that Sarah Palin is really well known in the country, which is one of the greatest challenges of running against an incumbent. It may be as they say, that all publicity is good publicity. Having high recognition now and building credibility later could be a strong strategy for Palin.
1. http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-03/politics/palin_1_sarah-palin-randy-ruedrich-re-election-plans?_s=PM:POLITICS
2. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/133265-whitman-palin-quitting-governors-job-shows-attitude-against-constituents-interests
3. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/mixed-reaction-to-palins-resignation-as-alaska-governor_100213245.html
In response to Patrick:
I agree that Republicans need to focus on the issues more, but I don't think they should completely disregard their party morals. I think their ideology is really what unites them as a party and really defines them as being different from the Democrats and Obama, who many people are dissatisfied with. At the same time, I agree with you that the Republicans need to reach across party lines to solve important issues, which involves a little loss of party identity. An inability to work across party lines is a trait that has made Obama look bad, so it'll look great if the Republicans are the first to offer compromise (1).
I disagree that Mike Pence would be the best candidate. It's been said that he could give Sarah Palin an excuse not to run, which would be great, but this is only because he's a very strong conservative and Sarah Palin would likely support him (2). As I mentioned, it's important for the Republicans to be ready to compromise with Democrats and appeal to centrist America in order to get things done. Mike Pence won't contribute to this atmosphere.
1. http://www.startribune.com/nation/111498144.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiacyKU7DYaGEP7vDEh7P:DiUs
2. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/02/why-mike-pence-could-steal-sarah-palins-thunder/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home