« Is Dennis Ross Israel's lead Negotiator? | Main | Well This Explains a Lot: The Less than Stellar Hunter of OBL »

23 May 2011


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


Obama could switch his party affiliation. I see no difference between them except for some rhetoric.

R Whitman

I really hope it wont be as dull as you predict. Us "old farts" need some entertainment. Now that Trump is out, I hope Newt stays in. We will get something for the comedians.
Maybe Colbert will run.


The smart Republicans know that all problems now have painful solutions.

Who wants to be Hoover?


Michael Bloomberg also "flatly said he wouldn't run".

Jindal? Christie?

"Romneycare" can be circumvented by turning the health care debate into a states' right question. Essentially, Romney could argue that what is wrong about Obamacare is not so much its actual workings, but simply the very fact of trying to impose a single, government-mandated system to the entire country, when health care should really be left to states to decide upon. That way, Romney could still paint himself as anti-Obamacare, even though Obamacare is generally regarded as a virtual copy of the Mass system.


Good political anaylsis PL.

This turn of events demonstrates, what a bunch of PANSY ASSES the establishment GOP is made of.(Of course when it comes to starting wars, these brave guys are willing to fight to the last drop of blood. As long as that blood belongs to somebody else's son.)

At least the girls(Bachman/Palin) have cojones.

God help us!

Stuart Wood

Col. Lang,
You made my day with this post. I agree 100% and never laughed louder while reading your comments on the potential candidates.


At this point a run by Jeb Bush would not surprise.



You are correct. “Four more years”; but, my zeal and hope are gone, thrown in the trash with my Obama T-shirt.

The corporate media will do the Howard Dean “scream” job on any candidate who does not have increasing their owners’ profits close to their heart; thus, it will be Pawlenty verses Obama.

This era seems to be a mixed up replay of 1856 and 1912. Something is momentous is happening but what? Here is a hint: Fiscal Corruption, Unsustainable Wars, and GOP Crazies. Is it just me but the pictures from Tuscaloosa and Joplin look like hill tops after battle in Vietnam? At the current rate the permanent Arctic Ice Field will gone by 2030.

Climate Change and Perpetual Unemployment; unaddressed in the elites rush for wealth.


Colonel Lang,

Of course the people who are nervous about heroin and cocain being legalized could still safely vote for Ron Paul as [at least so far] the President does not make those kinds of decisions. It is the Legislative branch of Government that does.

USMC 65-72
FBI 72-96


Romney has one advantage that I don't see being considered. He's not scary in the way the rest of the field is, and that leaves Obama vulnerable on the left. There are plenty of liberals out there who are disappointed in Obama, some of which is their fault for not paying attention to what he had to say during the campaign, some of which is due to Obama's performance after the election.

The thought of "President Palin" would be enough to keep the left toeing the line. Romney might be able to make himself non threatening enough that the the left doesn't show up for Obama, as happened in the 2000 election.

Charles I

R Whitman lets hope, get online and support his PAC, or I think he's getting a SuperPac to comply with Scotus, whatever that case was called. He's already had a few laughs at Newt's expense. Go to ColbertNation.com I'm sure.

I saw Being John Malkovich the other night and I wonder what'd be like to spend 15 minutes in Newt or ok the Donald, as they appear to announce, like wtf is going on in there, n/w/s Newt may have once made a good President many, many moons ago it just doesn't seem real. then aptly named toto lands pointing out the contortions others may have to execute to assume, er, aspire to the position, ensuring nothing is.


Jeb, et. al., are playing a long game -- 2016, when there is no Presidential incumbent.

Look for the Republicans to continue to focus on statehouses and state legislatures in 2012.

Conservative and corporate money always plays the long game.


Unfortunately for Palin/Bachman "there are not enough resentful, ignorant people out there to elect them."

Sounds a lot like, "So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion ... "


Another good reason to sit out until 2016:

Let someone else take the flak for trying to re-boot the economy, get us out of the wars in the Middle East, etc.

There is a lot of crap that still needs picking up after the disaster of the W years. Basically a thankless kind of job.

And maybe by then the Tea Party will float off into the sunset. As soon as the dark-skinned one is leaving, I expect most of the those folks will go back to sleep.

Patrick Lang


A foolish comparison. pl

Paul in NC

Gingrich would never have made a good President. He is the same person now he has always been. And shouldn't that be "divine?"

William R. Cumming

Interesting post and comments.

Much in the way of events could trammel over the incumbent and challengers by 2012.

I note Putin has announced his comeback so guess more Sovietologists will now get employment!

Many of the dropouts may hope lighting strikes as VPs!


Interesting that when Mitt’s father was in national politics his religion was no big deal. George Romney had a lot of problems as a candidate but his Mormonism was not one of them.

The present situation is too bad for the GOP, because Obama has some notable vulnerabilities they can’t exploit. People are still angry at Wall Street, nobody can figure out his Rube Goldberg health care bill, the unemployment numbers remain unacceptably high, his foreign policy is a tad confused, his base has some serious beefs with him, the wars go on. Fortunately for Obama the modern GOP is uniquely unsuited to take advantage of any of the foregoing. They can hope the economy helps them out by backsliding.


The only hope for enliving the next 18 months' politics is to press for rapid passage of a constitutional amendment which I've been pushing. It would stipulate (1) the consolidation of the positions of Vice-President and First Spouse; & (2) separate ballots for President and VP/First Spouse. This would give legal confirmation to the de facto reality that the First Spouse has become as influencial as the Vice-President. It also implicitly recognizes that in event of the President's death, we have lost not one but the two most powerful people in the government.

Think of the possibilities. Past: Obama & Sarah Palin; McCain & Michelle; Sarah Palin & Hillary. Future: Obama & god knows who; god knows who & Michele. As for logistical arrangements, there are lots of bedrooms and bathrooms in the White House. In addition, there is the official Vice-Presidential residence on Mass Avenue. Would separate neighborhoods make for a smoother partnership at the head of the U.S. government?

The years ahead will be rough on the American psyche. It would be a blessing to have even more comic relief than now available.

Roy G

The next 18 months will resemble the I-P 'roadmap': lots of hand waving and donation-grabbing, to distract from the fact that we're going nowhere.

Alas, poor Newtie, he couldn't even live up to 'do as I say, not as I do.'


If worse comes to worse and my proposed constitutional amendment somehow is not ratified in time to set the terms of the 2012 election, there is another course open to the ethical public citizen. It is to take the counsel of Will Rogers who advised "Don't vote, it just encourages them." He had reason for keeping his distance from national affairs since he was a full-blooded Cherokee.

I didn't vote for President in 2008. While I cannot say that it make a discerible impact on our political life, at least I have a clear conscience.


It would seem to me that we are still a polarized red state/blue state country and nothing has been resolved on that front. So I believe presidential elections will continue to hinge on what the voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida decide.

The OBL glow will likely fade by next spring and the state of the economy will play more in voters minds. I wouldn't bet that Obama is a definite winner yet. No doubt he would need better competition than what McCain/Palin gave him during the last go around. As far as money is concerned although Obama would likely raise more than $1 billion so would his Republican opponent. And then there is all that money thanks to SCOTUS that will not be accounted for that will amplify messages. I am not sure what one is likely to hear with all that cacophony. So it's possible that people may revert back to their traditional partisan tribalism. At this early stage of the race it seems there would likely be an enthusiasm deficit among voters.

As a cynical American I don't think it matters who wins and which party has the majority. Not much will change until circumstances force it.

I have just finished reading a wonderful book, Mr. Speaker by Jim Grant. It is a biography of Speaker of the House, Republican, Thomas Reed. As Jim Grant brings to life, the late 19th century in many ways is a mirror to now - with brazen corruption, partisan gridlock and massive concentration of wealth. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Indy Ike

"Pawlenty - Who? Oh, him... ZZZZZZZZZZZZ."

Can't get no respect:


William R. Cumming

I fully expect several inexplicable SCOTUS rulings in the next 30 days and over the next 18 months.


Mbrenner's point about the effect on the American psyche can't be overstated. We are reaching a point of national limits. And we lack the leadership to redefine a sustainable national vision: more inward-focused, less international "policing," less intervention, etc.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

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
Blog powered by Typepad