GOP Primary Megathread!

[Phillip V]

Romney leading Obama in Florida by 3 points

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/obama-trails-romney-in-florida-110456.html

[Valmy]

If only the election really was right now.  Instead we have the most tiresome 11 months in politics ahead of us.

[Ed Anger]

If only the election really was right now.  Instead we have the most tiresome 11 months in politics ahead of us.

I'm tired of news broadcasts from some shithole diner in bumfuck, NH.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah but the thing is that he'd be even more ineffective that a typical president. Which is sort of okay if you go with the notion that you'd rather the president be hamstrung and not fuck things up, but I'm not sure we're in a good place to have ineffectual presidents.

I think part of his attraction is that he says he doesn't want power.  He wants the Presidency to do very little beyond trying to influence things.  After the cult of the Presidency that's an attractive tonic.

But I agree with the line I read somewhere that he's the most lovably dangerous man in America.  I'm a big fan.

[Eddie Teach]

If only the election really was right now.  Instead we have the most tiresome 11 months in politics ahead of us.

The only reason it's tiresome is that you're actually paying attention to it right now. Primary season is way more interesting than Congress debating a bill for several months.

[Admiral Yi]

The only reason it's tiresome is that you're actually paying attention to it right now. Primary season is way more interesting than Congress debating a bill for several months.

It's semi interesting right now but those 85 debates were torture.

[Eddie Teach]

It's semi interesting right now but those 85 debates were torture.

Self-inflicted.

[grumbler]

I'm tired of news broadcasts from some shithole diner in bumfuck, NH. 

That's the only fun part of the entire primary season, to me.  Republican Iowa voters are way too narrow to make for interesting interviews, and after NH politics go from retail to wholesale, so interviews are more general.  The NH interviews are specific and, generally, somewhat informed.  I'll miss 'em.

[The Minsky Moment]

Like many at the time, Huntsman bought into Obamamania and jumped ship, resigning as Governor of Utah. He is quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now "irrelevant". However, Huntsman did not anticipate the 2010 midterm elections, thus quitting his ambassadorship after less than two years to abandon the Obama administration and run against it.

Truthspeak at it's best! 

Of the 8 ambassadors to the PRC before Huntsman, 4 served less than 3 years.  The argument that Huntsman's resignation in April 2001 came as a result of his hearing about the results of the election in Nov 2010 is pretty amusing.

The argument that Huntsman resigned as governor of Utah and took the job from Obama because of "Obamamania" (which contains the implication that it was merely coincidental that Huntsman was fluent in Mandarin and had already served in two ambassador-level positions).

Agreed.
Huntsman took the job because the President of the United States selected him for what is probably the single most important diplomatic portfolio we have.
Bravo to Obama for offering such a criticial post to the most qualified person for the job, and bravo for Huntsman for putting the national interest over partisanship and accepting.

[Valmy]

The only reason it's tiresome is that you're actually paying attention to it right now. Primary season is way more interesting than Congress debating a bill for several months.

Granted.  Ok it is the most tiresome 11 months in news and current events.  I try to avoid following the election but it is all people will be talking about.

[KRonn]

So what the heck is up with all the votes for Ron Paul? The guy is a radical no government type, along with other "out there" ideas. Now, to a point I can like that he wants to cut back government, but he goes way too far/radical. And other stuff, especially on Foreign Policy. As I've said before though, it looks like those annoyed over government are looking to him for some big changes. And between the OWS, Tea Party, and other folks not liking the way Washington has been doing business for a long time now, I guess I can understand Paul's popularity as there are a lot of disaffected folks.

Well I am going to vote for him because of foreign policy and civil liberty stuff but it will hardly matter by then.  This nomination is a formality for Mitt at this point.  I mean yeah it would be bad if Paul became dictator and implemented his entire crazy program, but he would not be able to do that even if he won (which he wont) but he is really the only guy who even addresses this stuff for the most part.  I think you have it that a big part of it is just that he challenges the establishment that is generating so much frustration and resentment

Contrasted to Paul, I like Gingrich for his views on real change, better ways of doing things, in government. He has had some great ideas, and his forum/think tank spell out a lot of it. Lots of good stuff. He did create some change as Speaker, such as reforming Welfare under the Clinton admin, and other things. He seems to know better how to get things done. On the other hand, Ron Paul hasn't seemed to get his ideas through after all his years in Congress. Don't get me wrong, I like Paul's ideas on more limited govt, less foreign involvement. I just think he's too angry, isn't well thought out. Such as Iran having nukes would be ok by him.

[Capetan Mihali]

Going nowhere beats going in the wrong direction.

There is always a direction.

[Valmy]

Contrasted to Paul, I like Gingrich for his views on real change, better ways of doing things, in government. He has had some great ideas, and his forum/think tank spell out a lot of it. Lots of good stuff. He did create some change as Speaker, such as reforming Welfare under the Clinton admin, and other things. He seems to know better how to get things done. On the other hand, Ron Paul hasn't seemed to get his ideas through after all his years in Congress. Don't get me wrong, I like Paul's ideas on more limited govt, less foreign involvement. I just think he's too angry, isn't well thought out. Such as Iran having nukes would be ok by him.

Gingrich's views are...well...I heard that debate he had on C-Span where basically he was calling for the judiciary to be more subordinate to the legislature.  Specifically regarding a specific Federal Court he did not like.  Announcing your contempt for the balance of power and the Constitution, and explicitely because a specific court does things you don't like, is not going to win many points with me.  Especially since that strikes me as something that might actually happen as opposed to reinstating the Gold standard.

Paul's non-interventionist ideas obviously make him vulnerable to the accusation that therefore evil committed abroad is good or ok.  Which is ridiculous. 

But really what are we talking about here?  Neither of these guys is going to get the nomination.

[Sheilbh]

I don't buy this immaculate appointment story on Huntsman in China.  I don't know about his motivation, but there was a definite, cynical political upside for Obama. He acknowledged and so did others at the time, he was removing a better-Mitt from the GOP field and it was praised as a very successful tactical move.

I think it was, though given Huntsman's failings, it was probably unnecessary.

[grumbler]

Gingrich's views are...well...I heard that debate he had on C-Span where basically he was calling for the judiciary to be more subordinate to the legislature.  Specifically regarding a specific Federal Court he did not like.  Announcing your contempt for the balance of power and the Constitution, and explicitely because a specific court does things he doesn't like, is not going to win many points with me.  Especially since that strikes me as something that might actually happen as opposed to reinstating the Gold standard.

Paul's non-interventionist ideas obviously make him vulnerable to the accusation that therefore evil committed abroad is good or ok.  Which is ridiculous. 

But really what are we talking about here?  Neither of these guys is going to get the nomination.

I agree with you that Paul's ideas, while unrealistic, are at least honest.  Gingrich is opposed to government waste unless it is the millions of dollars of money the government is paying to him to "advise" it.  Gingrich may have some good ideas, but he is way too personally sold out to the establishment for me to think for a moment that he proposes any of his ideas out of altruism.  Paul would promote ideas that hurt him personally, I would think, if they fit his philosophy about "what is good for the country."