« Holbrooke - Richard Sale | Main | How close are we to this? »

17 December 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Patrick Lang

nazgul35

And who would be your suggestion? pl

walrus

Obama will lose if he runs. I was a mug enough to be part of his base, but like the rest of it I was disillusioned very quickly and removed myself from the mailing lists. The young base will just not turn out for him.

My view is that the construction of an American Police State is continuing at an accelerating pace under Obama. The attacks on Assange, Manning, Wikileaks and the associated practices of whistleblowing and investigative reporting are designed to chill free speech permanently. My guess is that the Obama administration will go for the death penalty for Manning and life imprisonment for Assange and any associates they can find.

Your next President will be a crypto Republican - not a real old fashioned Republican, but one who can be counted on to be controllable and to do the bidding of the Thousand or so families who control Politics in America.

My bet is still on Gen. Petreaus as a dream Republican candidate, plus Palin again as VP candidate to bring in the crazies.

Fred

David Petraeus? He is neither Ceasar nor Scipio Africanus. America is tired of two wars and the general may get the medal of freedom but he won't get the electoral votes. Think of General Hancock in 1880.

Margaret Steinfels

Obama, if he runs, will lose to whom?

Nobody mentioned so far can win, that is, if she/he decides to run. Bloomberg has said he will not run. Wise decision. No Texas governor will be a successful presidential candidate for the next hundred years--or at least in living memory of those who lived under GWB.

Jose

Christie can not win in Iowa or South Carolina and even New Hampshire is a long shot against Romney.

I am a Republican, but would only vote for a moderates like Christie, Romney or, God forgive me, Shillary.

Bloomberg or Paul are not electable because they are sane.

FoolBama will never get my vote or win Florida again, so given the choice of a Fool or an Extremist their is always "The Rent Is Too Damn High Party".

Norman Rogers

The next President of the United States is Al Gore.

He's ready, rested, and available, ladies. Think of that--a single man as POTUS. The national press would have a field day, playing matchmaker. He would immediately solve the Left's problem with Obama by giving them the man they always wanted. He would end the power lock of the Clintons and retire them, utterly, and for that he would earn more than a few Republican votes. And, please. There's no one more qualified than Al Gore to be President.

Gingrich? Palin? et al? Please.

Eight years of Al Gore and America will be well positioned to stay ahead of China, Brazil and India. And that is ALL that matters. ALL THAT MATTERS.

BillWade

If Congressman Ron Paul gets to audit the federal reserve effectively, he'll be in great position for 2012. I think Obama is toast unless he performs some miracles this coming year. I hope this country has finally tired of Royal Families but I think Jeb Bush will be the Rep nominee, Ron Paul 3rd Party nominee, and Hillary Clinton for the Dems.

CWZ

I know better than to predict anything this far out!

JYD

Colonel,

Christie and virtually any non-Southern/Western Republican cannot win the GOP nomination in the near term.

There is a vocal and activist minority that prefers mediocrity over ideological impurity.

I foresee hand to hand combat in the GOP convention and if the country is lucky, we might see someone like a Romney or a Mike Pence.

If not, it will be Palin and God save the Republic...

CK

Don't you all think that maybe america's ex-mayor Rudy G might be considered?
@Norm, unless you want to unleash the nukes, America is going to slip behind China in less than a decade. Brazil, Russia, Iran, Vietnam, India and other nations will rise. Whatever was there in 1947 has been squandered, pissed away; it is funny that Germany and Japan were the short term economic victors of WW2 and that China and the european ex-colonies will be the eventual winners.
It's enough to make one believe in the old greek FleaFlicker from Arete to Hubris to Nemesis to Ate. ( with a viewcam of Narcissus on the big screen ).

Clifford Kiracofe

On the Republican side, Barbour seems to me the best candidate BY FAR based on his overall experience. His Republican Governor peers selected him as their chairman. He has broad national experience.

Carter had a Georgia accent and Clinton had an Arkansas accent. Little Bush had a fake sort of Texas twang, sort of. I don't think Barbour's Southern origins would hurt at all. [I admit to some bias but...]

Carl O makes a strong point: THE ECONOMY is a wreck and getting worse. Thus we need some serious leadership and some large national projects. Ike did the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Interstate System why not think big again like Ike and FDR and others such as Kennedy and the Space Program? Hoover Dams, TVAs, and the like?

We are deindustrialized as Carl O points out. I have visited friends in New Jersey in formerly active working class neighborhoods based on industrial production. But you look around and all the plants are shut down having migrated to China or wherever.

A friend of mine was in the Middle West (Illinois) last year visiting a friend of his who owns the last independent ball bearing plant in US hands in the US, or so my friend indicated.

The next president will have to think big like Ike and FDR and JFK to "Move a Nation." Obama did have a "Mandate for Change" but has blown it so far...perhaps he can reinvent himself but perhaps not.

Meanwhile we are mired down in no-win wars wasting trillions and sabotaging the future for the coming generations.

Our vapid, corrupt, and narcissitic political elites play into the hands of our rivals-competitors-enemies. The "Game of Nations" moves on and we may well be left rather behind...
Consider: http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf

mongoose

Only the most vainglorious would seek the office in 2012--and rarely does the talent needed to be a good president (not great--that's asking too much given our current condition) reside in the vainglorious. That said, I say, Senator (and my favorite socialist) Bernie Sanders and either Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert as his VP sidekick.

As Nazgul35 noted above, "the names bandied about here are beyond laughable." Perhaps my choice(s) are laughable, but Sanders paired with either Stewart or Colbert would not only be entertaining but we could laugh, seriously.

Patrick Lang

Clifford

""Mandate for Change" but has blown it so far"

A mandate to change what? pl

Redhand

IMO the best comment here is that by "Carl O." I live in NJ FWIW, so my comments are colored by local knowledge/prejudice.

Christie is a blustering incompetent. See Error on 'Race to the Top' application costs N.J. $400M in federal funds.

I feel that his scuttling of the new Hudson tunnel is a huge mistake as well. That project would have meant jobs, and anyone living in "North Jersey" like I do is amazed at how we still have the same-old, same-old deteriorating infrastructure. Christie took the short view for short-term political advantage: it was a stupid move.

Of course, when it comes to carting his own carcass around, "Nothing's too good." Chris Christie: No. 1 U.S. Attorney In Wasting Gov't Travel Money.

Make no mistake, my disgust with Obama increases daily. I think he could well be vulnerable in two years. But we have to see how badly the Republican House, and a Senate paralyzed by Republican addiction to the cloture rule, generates a do-nothing backlash.

In short, it's too early to tell what the playing field will look like: the only guarantee we have is that the federal government will poorly serve all of us between now and 2012.

"Change you can believe in."

Stephanie

The diversity of suggestions above highlights the current reality: The GOP has no candidate. As things stand currently, Obama, hurt as he is, has nothing to fear against any of these guys, all of whom have significant weaknesses.

Christie - I just don't see it. It's not only the loudmouth obnoxious part. His resume is nothing to write home about and has some problems. He seems to delight in doing stuff that will annoy liberals just because it will annoy liberals even if said stuff is dumb and senseless, and so he winds up blowing it for his state as he did with Race to the Top. Eventually that may catch up to him. (Or not. Who knows these days.)

There will be no primary challenge to Obama. His monolithic African American support is his firewall. No Democratic challenger will take the risk of alienating such an important part of the party's base, and even if Obama announces that he's ending Social Security and plans to dance about on its grave singing hallelujah, I don't see that support wavering.

Clifford Kiracofe

PL,

"Mandate for Change" I took from the title of Ike's presidential memoirs. I started rereading them some months ago. "To Move a Nation" was Roger Hilsman's book on Kennedy admin.

Change? Foreign policy, economic policy, and the like. Ike lays out his common sense concepts and policy clearly in the memoirs.

Back in that day, folks were sick and tired of Truman, the Korean War, and etc.

Not unlike 2010: folks tired of the wars, the foreign policy, the economic mess. People wanted a "Change" although maybe not the one Obama had in mind, or his advisors like Holbrooke etal. had in mind. [At least the ambitious and abrasive Holbrooke is not now in a position to be the next Secretary of State.]

The public was misled by Obama as they thought "change" meant well...change... rather than same old same old.

I voted for Obama, but he did not deliver what he promised. Thus, he betrayed his mandate and his voters, IMO. Just a black version of little Bush in foreign policy and in whoring for Wall Street.

My understanding is that a significant portion of the black community is angry with Obama as he has not delivered on the economy and there is a lot of unemployment and so on. Some black Congressional circles are said to be not pleased with him. Perhaps some SST readers have data in this regard.

Republicans have no Ikes these days nor any Bob Tafts. A large portion of present day Republicans have fallen off the deep end and have become Armageddonist crazies or pander to them as I explain in my book "Dark Crusade." They are not Republicans in the normal sense: Taft (conservative), Ike (moderate), etc. in the post-war era.

Change: foreign policy and economic policy. Perhaps Barbour could and would do something serious.

kao_hsien_chih

If I'd dare to venture a guess, Marco Rubio for Prez, Newt Gingrich for VP. That'd tie up Democrats in knots...if, that is, Rubio can get through the primaries.

Roy G

I appreciate the respect that Haley Barbour is getting here, but I don't have a favorable impression of him, and it has nothing to do with his accent:

Lobbyist - Big Tobacco, RNC Chairman during the Republican Revolution which spawned the current party incarnation, only elected official experience as Governor of Mississippi, made huge cuts to social services, while Mississippi lags at the bottom of many socioeconomic indicators. Made many tone deaf public remarks during the oil spill, and likely benefitted financially during that crisis. In short, Quintessential Washington Insider, and hothouse candidate.

He may have some good points, and may represent an improvement over some of the even more revanchist Republican candidates, however, in my estimation, he's sitting in the same rowboat with Newt Gingrich.

Roy G

...then again, perhaps Mr. Barbour represents the lesser of all evils:

John Bolton eyes 2012 Presidential Nomination

The illustrious Mr. Bolton stands out even in what promises to be a banner year of batshit candidates.

William R. Cumming

I suspect that the Presidential election of 2012 will be the most wide-open ever for both parties when an incumbent President is available to run. I suspect by default that Obama will be the DEMS candidate but not without some challenge or even not without his serious consideration of one-term only.
For the Republicans it is wideopen but I believe Jeb Bush if interested will be the default candidate and he would win.

The parties are realigning and that process which in US history ususally takes about 30 years and started about 1990 in US is not finished. The largest party at this point is the Independents and because many vote it will be interesting to see whether their turnout and wavering between policies over last 3 or 4 Presidential elections will continue. My guess is the Republicans will take it from a disorganized and corrupted DEMOCRATIC party. Palin is about the inherent corruption despite her ethics problems and that may make a strong pull of indpendents who believe correctlyor incorrectly that even her flakiness is a strength because sh so far seems beholden to few in the Republican party. This will be a fascinating one to watch.

In the meantime of course since history has not ended, the tigers in the Nation-States will take full advantage of US drift and disallusionment.

The general failure of leadership in the US in all its major sinews of power hard and soft continue. Why? Greed? Technology? Education? Religion? etc.etc.?

rick

Palin-Petraeus

It would let the repulicans be the first to put a woman on top of the ticket, and siphon off some PUMA's who thought Hillary lost due to sexism, rather than her being the less persuasive candidate.

The Mama Grizzly and the Victor of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's perfect.

If they can get elected, and I think they could, we will deserve what we get.

rick

I have to ask, would a Boston accent be helpful in Virginia politics? How much help would a New York city accent be in South Carolina. Maybe Yankee prejudice has infected other areas of the country. We're sorry.

zanzibar

I don't think it really matters who becomes the next President or which party has the majority in the next Congress. Both our political parties represent the corporatist and national security state. The Democrats provide kabuki to their liberal base while voting mostly with the Republicans to further increase the power of the state. The Republicans while making their political campaigns about "Gods, Gays & Guns" throw occasional red meat to the evangelist wing of their party while continuing to use the power of the state to feather their nests.

At the end of the day we seem to be marching inexorably towards Mussolini's definition of fascism. Our Constitution is becoming more and more meaningless as the citizens no longer really believe in the sacrifices necessary to ensure liberty and sovereignty of the people.

fanto

How about Jon Stewart on the left side of political spectrum? The economy will get worse and than the Right will come out with military extortion of China and Europe, making General Petreus their Demi-God. The polarization will get worse IMO.

Larry Mitchell

I wanted to see Chuck Hagel in the last election, and I would like to see him again. He may be finished with politics. A lot of republicans don't like him because he asked some hard questions of Bush about the wars. I think he would show fiscal responsibility and look out for our military and veterans. I don't think he would be afraid of the generals.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad