2012 Presidential Candidates

[SnakeTom]

Questions: We are now 2 years from the next election.I have a few questions.

1. Who do you think will emerge as the Republican nominee and who do you think should be the candidate? (the answer may be the same person or two different people)

2. Regardless of party or who the nominees are who do you think would make the best President? Or if you want name those from each party who you think wouild do the best job in the White House. (PS: I am not excluding President Obama from this question. We know he will be the Dem nominee but if you think another Dem would do a better job tell us who & why)

Tom K

 

[Bobbie Solo]

i'd like to see kucinich run again at some point. i supported & donated to his campaign last time, and i would gladly do so again. Dems & progressives want real change? then vote for a true progressive next time, not a hip candidate who speaks well but is just a typical politician like the rest.


cue the insults and eye-rolling from the conservatives on here!

 

[HALL85]

1. My guess is that Romney will get the nomination...and I think he'll lose to Obama. After watching the 60 Minutes profile tonight on Scott Brown, give him time to get more of a track record for 2016. He'll never get the nomination, because he'd piss off too many Republicans, but that's what we need.
2. Ron Paul in 2012, but that's not happening either.

 

[SPK145]

The Republicans have to nominate someone that is electable. That should eliminate Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich, et al.

Seems like Romney would be the best choice. He's not the perfect conservative but he's conservative enough, is electable, has the requisite experience, and is presidential.

Of course I love Ron Paul, he's just not electable, makes far too much common sense for the American populace to understand.

Personally I still really like Pawlenty. Great leader, etc. just does not have the pizazz to move to the forefront.
This post was edited on 2/21 9:47 PM by SPK145

 

[HALL85]

Tom, what do you think of Scott Brown. I think he needs more experience and a track record, but his voting record thus far resonates with me and I like the fact that he doesn't vote along party lines and is a concensus builder.

 

[SPK145]

Brown seems like a phony to me. Campaigned one way to get elected, now is something different.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by SPK145:
Brown seems like a phony to me. Campaigned one way to get elected, now is something different.

And what about Mitt Romney. Campaigned for Governor as a staunchly Pro Choice candidate even invoking his mother name as a pro choice pioneer.But when running for President he is a staunch pro life candidate. Now I do not strongly care about the abortion issue. It's not something I base my vote on, but if a candidate flips so easily here how do you really know where he stands on other issues.

Having said that Romney appears to be the Republicans strongest candidate for the general election if he can survive the primaries. There has always been the issue if the religious right would support a Mormon & their votes are much more potent in the GOP primary than in a general election.

In answer to Hall85's question I just do not know enough about Brown to have an opinion yet.

Now to reverse my self, two+ years ago the two candidates that I most strongly opposed were Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton. I have changed my views they probably would have been the two best Presidential choices from each party. I think both would have governed better because of their experiences & they would have been able to govern better because they would have been more adept at dealing with the opposing party. In Hillary's case as a longer term Senator she would have been much more able to deal with and control congress. Her toughness would have been an asset.

Tom K

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

Originally posted by SPK145:
Brown seems like a phony to me. Campaigned one way to get elected, now is something different.

And what about Mitt Romney. Campaigned for Governor as a staunchly Pro Choice candidate even invoking his mother name as a pro choice pioneer.But when running for President he is a staunch pro life candidate. Now I do not strongly care about the abortion issue. It's not something I base my vote on, but if a candidate flips so easily here how do you really know where he stands on other issues.

Tom K

Good point, hence my "not the perfect candidate" mantra. Not as bad as Kerry though, LOL.

Anyone who voted for Obama can never, ever, ever talk about experience being a necessary trait though.

 

[SnakeTom]

Experience is a "preferred trait", not a necessary one. But in OB's case it his lack of experience showed. Hence my re-evaluation of Hillary. But as I said in another thread. I am disappointed in OB's first two years but I have not given up on him. Reagan & Clinton struggled their first two years also. Both Bush's rode high in the polls after years one and two then faltered.

Tom K

 

[Section112]

I am hoping the Repubs come up with a good electable choice. It would not take much to do better than Obama at this point. He has really been off the mark for me in his first two years. Now he's moving to the center so he can get reelected. I long for an election where there are two viable candidates running. I have not seen much of that since I started voting in 1980.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by Section112:
I long for an election where there are two viable candidates running. I have not seen much of that since I started voting in 1980.

Wow. Two viable candidates. Now you want everything.

Tom K

 

[HallOnTheHill]

The Republican party is very much a wait your turn party, and it seems like it's Mitt Romney's turn.

He also, based on the field of supposed nominees, is the most electable of the GOP batch. Like SPK, I'm a Ron Paul fan, but libertarian arguments are always taken to their logical extreme, making someone like Ron Paul unelectable.

Palin is not qualified to be president and most of the country knows it. I don't even think she's that strong in a real GOP primary any more.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on Obama to win re-election.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by Section112:
I am hoping the Repubs come up with a good electable choice. It would not take much to do better than Obama at this point. He has really been off the mark for me in his first two years. Now he's moving to the center so he can get reelected. I long for an election where there are two viable candidates running. I have not seen much of that since I started voting in 1980.

Section112: Regarding your comment on how many times since 1980 have we had a Presidential election with two viable quality candidates I can think of only once. That was 1992 George H.W. Bush vs Bill Clinton.

Tom K

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by HallOnTheHill:
Palin is not qualified to be president and most of the country knows it. I don't even think she's that strong in a real GOP primary any more.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on Obama to win re-election.

Many Dems want to see Palin as the GOP candidate as they view her as the most beatable. I disagree with that philosophy. Anyone who gets the nomination can win depending on events occuring during the election (war, economic collapse etc). For that reason I want to see the two most qualified competent candidates be the nominees regardless of their political philosophies. I am a liberal but I'd rather see a qualified conservative rather than say a Jimmy Carter clone or Michael Dukakis become President. And I'd put Sarah Palin in that grossly unqualified grouping.

Tom K

 

[shu09]

What exactly is the definition of a "viable" candidate? That's a highly subjective question.

 

[SnakeTom]

You are right 09. viable is a subjective term. It could mean electable. I do not know what definition the others are using. But I'm referring to competent and knowledgable. Someone who would make a good President.

Tom K

 

[shu09]

Personally I've thought all of the recent candidates (last 20 years), except Bob Dole, have been viable.

 

[HallOnTheHill]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

Originally posted by HallOnTheHill:
Palin is not qualified to be president and most of the country knows it. I don't even think she's that strong in a real GOP primary any more.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on Obama to win re-election.

Many Dems want to see Palin as the GOP candidate as they view her as the most beatable. I disagree with that philosophy. Anyone who gets the nomination can win depending on events occuring during the election (war, economic collapse etc). For that reason I want to see the two most qualified competent candidates be the nominees regardless of their political philosophies. I am a liberal but I'd rather see a qualified conservative rather than say a Jimmy Carter clone or Michael Dukakis become President. And I'd put Sarah Palin in that grossly unqualified grouping.

Tom K

Totally agree. I'd much rather a competent person with whom I disagree become President than risk someone who's not competent harm the country. We're all Americans first.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by HallOnTheHill:

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

Originally posted by HallOnTheHill:
Palin is not qualified to be president and most of the country knows it. I don't even think she's that strong in a real GOP primary any more.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on Obama to win re-election.

Many Dems want to see Palin as the GOP candidate as they view her as the most beatable. I disagree with that philosophy. Anyone who gets the nomination can win depending on events occuring during the election (war, economic collapse etc). For that reason I want to see the two most qualified competent candidates be the nominees regardless of their political philosophies. I am a liberal but I'd rather see a qualified conservative rather than say a Jimmy Carter clone or Michael Dukakis become President. And I'd put Sarah Palin in that grossly unqualified grouping.

Tom K

Totally agree. I'd much rather a competent person with whom I disagree become President than risk someone who's not competent harm the country. We're all Americans first.

I pretty much feel the same way. Give me competence any day over party affiliation. And to Tom's point, we have had very few competent leaders on the Presidential/Vice-Presidential tickets in the last 20 years...actually, I can't think of one combination that was elected or lost that I would characterize as competent.

 

[SPK145]

Look at Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico as well.

Anyone who voted for Obama has zero standing for discussing viability.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by SPK145:
Anyone who voted for Obama has zero standing for discussing viability.

Following your logic you could say the same thing about anyone who voted for W or even Jimmy Carter for that matter.

Tom K

 

[SPK145]

Both were viable based on their previous executive experience running states.

 

[SnakeTom]

The mere fact thaty someone is Governor of a state does not make them qualified to be President. Do you really think David Paterson, Sarah Palin or dare I say it John Corzine would make a good President.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
The mere fact thaty someone is Governor of a state does not make them qualified to be President. Do you really think David Paterson, Sarah Palin or dare I say it John Corzine would make a good President.

Tom K

I think that's where you need to differentiate between viable and competent. The fact that a Governor runs the state, is responsible for the budget and working within the framework of a legislative structure makes them viable. Then you look at how they've performed and how that may translate into being a President to provide the competency piece. Paterson wasn't even elected and his record demonstrated his lack of competency. Obama never held any position where he had to manage a budget nor lead a legislature. As a comparison, you would never see a company hire a CEO who did not have any general management or experience running a P&L.
This post was edited on 3/2 7:14 AM by HALL85

 

[SnakeTom]

Whether or vnot the Governor was elected should not be a factor in evaluating his competence. True David Paterson was not competent but here in New Jersey of our 5 previous Governor's before Christie the two most competent were the two non-elected Governors.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Tom agree on the elect or not elect piece determining competence....we also agree Paterson was NOT!!! BTW, did you catch Christie on Meet the Press on Sunday...he actually gave Obama props for his position on education (rewarding performance vs. tenure) and a few other things.

 

[SnakeTom]

I didn't see it but the merit vs tenure argument is a dual edged sword issue. In theory yes good teachers should be rewarded & bad teachers eliminated. And we have all had both types teaching our children at times. But in practice who determines which teachers are good & which are not. Politics plays its part here, And lets not kid ourselves there are Boards of Education that are only concerned with eliminating higher paid teachers regardless of competency level. To make it look good they could give those teachers the worst classes to show lack of accomplishment. How do you prevent the hiring & firing practices from becoming a political football.

Tom K

 

[JMM13]

None of the current crop of potenital GOP nominees is strong enough to beat Obama in 2012, IMO. But that might be OK if GOP can secure both the House and Senate.

 

[Section112]

Tom those issues you bring up need to be discussed and they are certainly difficult issues. But everyone has had those teachers that are just terrible and are riding the tenure wave. And the other side of the coin for boards of ed is that when they have to fire teachers the job losers are the newest teachers on the low pay scale which is just as bad and patently unfair to the newer teachers. I'm actually surprised there haven't been more widely publicized lawsuits on behalf of non-tenured teachers losing their jobs and challenging tenure.

These issues all need to be debated but change must come as tenure has been around for a long time and it has not been changed or improved.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
I didn't see it but the merit vs tenure argument is a dual edged sword issue. In theory yes good teachers should be rewarded & bad teachers eliminated. And we have all had both types teaching our children at times. But in practice who determines which teachers are good & which are not. Politics plays its part here, And lets not kid ourselves there are Boards of Education that are only concerned with eliminating higher paid teachers regardless of competency level. To make it look good they could give those teachers the worst classes to show lack of accomplishment. How do you prevent the hiring & firing practices from becoming a political football.

Tom K

It's not an easy answer, but the current system protects bad teachers and that has to stop. There are always politics at play, whether in the public or private sector. The key to managing it though is to have accountability at all levels. If you're going to hold teachers accountable, then we need to hold the BOE's accountable as well. Perhaps, if overall test scores or drop-out rates do not meet pre-determined goals, then they should be removed from their positions. Great teachers also have the most important allies....students and parents. We do live in a democracy and if a great teacher is targeted for elimination for political or short term cost-cutting reasons as you've stated, you can be sure that the community would speak out.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by HALL85:

We do live in a democracy and if a great teacher is targeted for elimination for political or short term cost-cutting reasons as you've stated, you can be sure that the community would speak out.

Yes but you also have the opposing outcry of those who do not care how good a teacher is, just cut costs & that means the highest paid teachers. Usually this comes from folks with no kids in the school system.

Of course Industry is no different when it comes to cost cutting as age discrimination is commonplace but Corporate America knows how to use the system to get around it. "Let's see we lay off these five 60 year olds at high salaries but also lay off a 30 yr old & a 40 year old to make it look good". I fear the same thing happening in our school systems. But yes, change is needed as long as there are workable safeguards.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Tom, as a lawyer you should know that it cuts both ways. I've had to do several RIF's in my career anad have had to let go of more qualified younger employees than those over 50, even if the older employees have historical lower performance reviews, because of the protected class laws. My point is the laws that protect age discrimination, also unfairly hurt higher performing more qualified younger employees sometimes.

 

[SnakeTom]

Yes it does cut both ways but the older worker will find it much harder to get a new job and the protections against age discrimination are not as strong as one would think. By the way many companies however look to lay people off just before they hit that "protected" age.

TK

 

[HALL85]

There's always exceptions, but my experience is in the private sector, that if you do your job, consistantly earn good performance reviews, contribute as part of the team, rarely will you lose your job. It makes no sense to have an artificial tenure program to protect incompetence.

 

[SnakeTom]

For some companies the only decision making factor is get rid of the highest salaries. To them employees are replacable parts. Maybe you have just worked for good employers and there are alot of them but there are plenty of the other type out there also. And as I've said the protections you mention are very weak for the most part. Companies know how to work around them.

TK

 

[HALL85]

Tom, I think you missed my point. If that individual is making a high salary, it's more than likely that they are a high performer...there are not many companies in my experience that would get rid of a highly competent and performing individual, just because they are older or command a higher salary. It's somewhat counterintuitive for a company to fire people who are good at what they do. Private industry should be no different...just because you got to a lofty position and salary, you still need to work and produce results. I've seen lot's of execs who have put it on auto-pilot late in their careers that should be canned.
This post was edited on 3/11 9:40 AM by HALL85

 

[SnakeTom]

You are very naive if you don't think some companies dump long term productive employees just because they reach a point where there benefits (pension etc) or salaries are about to spike. Just remember labor/industry relationships are not all one sided. Like most everything else there are good and bad guys on both sides of the fence.

Regardless we have gotten way off topic.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Not naive...it does happen, but it's the exception rather than the rule. Most companies are interested in delivering results; and you need people that deliver results in order to accomplish that. I never said they were one-sided. I just believe a system that pays for performance is preferred over one that pays the same for everyone and protects only those with seniority.