The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

@Thomas,

I'm no fan. I'm talking about how likely he is to become the Republican nominee, though. I think that kind of craziness could fall under "principles," and isn't Sarah Palin-level craziness. Could easily be a selling point. (Again, not something I agree with.)

Noted that someone who might vote for a moderate Republican is so opposed to Christie, though.

P.S. I think the corpulence could also help if he ran against Obama -- regular guy vs. the slim, athletic "elitist."

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

I think that kind of craziness could fall under "principles," and isn't Sarah Palin-level craziness. Could easily be a selling point. (Again, not something I agree with.)

Noted. Sadly, craziness does indeed seem to be the new principle for large and growing parts of the Republican party. And it's toxic to be seen as unprincipled. Oh how I miss Richard Nixon!

0 Replies

I can't help but notice that every single nominee being discussed here has some sort of major problem - to the point where it almost seems ridiculous that they could win, especially versus a strong candidate like Obama.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Sarah Palin interviewed on Fox News -- "... those on the left, if it weren't for their double standards, they'd have no standards."

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Not crazy? The man just refused to have a second railway tunnel to New York built, even though 90% of the money would have come out of federal stimulus funds. Perhaps you need to live in New Jersey to appreciate what a big deal this was, and what crazy zealotry it took to turn it down. (And yes, perhaps I've just turned into a monster. I hate the you-need-to-be-one-of-us-before-you-can-talk-about-our-black-sheep card when other people play it on me.)

Christie may well work as a Tea-Party candidate. But for Republicans in general? I hope not. And for the general public? Definitely not.

I think you should look more into the facts of the matter. The State share was well over the 10 % you claim. In addition, this is by no means the first time a state or local government has turned down mass transit funds. Mass transit is a particular favorite of Democrats and we generally see booms in such programs in the first terms of democrat presidents, During Clinton's first term very large urban rail projects were turned down by the voters of Honolulu Hawaii and Seattle Washington under analogous circumstances and after considerable moneys had already been spent designing them. Both projects were sorely needed in the view of the transportation planners involved. However both would have imposed large, long-term debts on the states and counties involved and the voters turned them down. I know the stories well as I was on the joint venture boards designing (and hoping to build) them.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Mass transit is a particular favorite of Democrats ... I know the stories well as I was on the joint venture boards designing (and hoping to build) them.

Good morning, Mr Hypocrite.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I think you should look more into the facts of the matter. The State share was well over the 10 % you claim.

I double-checked; you're right about the numbers, and I was wrong. According to the New Jersey Star Ledger, New Jersey's share in the project was 32 rather than 10 percent. I had underestimated New Jersey's share, overestimated the Federal share, and ignored the share that the state of New York would have paid. This correction, though, does not affect my judgment that Christie was crazy to kill the project.

georgeob1 wrote:

In addition, this is by no means the first time a state or local government has turned down mass transit funds.

I didn't say it was, and that wasn't the reason I called Christie's decision crazy. The reason was that this particular mass transit project would have made an eminent amount of sense. (Current traffic infrastructure is at its limit, and the alternative of building new road-tunnels and tributary roads would be a nightmare in this densely-settled area.)

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
In addition, this is by no means the first time a state or local government has turned down mass transit funds.

I didn't say it was, and that wasn't the reason I called Christie's decision crazy. The reason was that this particular mass transit project would have made an eminent amount of sense. (Current traffic infrastructure is at its limit, and the alternative of building new road-tunnels and tributary roads would be a nightmare in this densely-settled area.)

The same logic applied in Honolulu & Seattle. Both cities had congested main highway arteries with no readily available alternatives, and both faced higher costs if construction was delayed. In both cases many tens of millions had already been spent in environmental permitting, design and ridership studies.

Sometimes the transit experts are simply wrong. Hundreds of millions were spent on light rail systems in Baltimore, Denver and other cities that ended up with low ridership and a permanent drain on the finances of the cities and counties involved. No rational economic analysis would have justified the downtown Charles river project in Boston (the infamous "Big Dig") that ended up destroying the country's premier Transit company (Parsons Brinkerhof).

I also think the Federal government has grossly exceeded its authority in dangling Fedderal matching funds to induce State and local governments to do its "always enlightened" bidding. The forces for a reaction to all that are building and I believe Christie has aided their cause.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

So george, what do you think of Christie as a potential Republican Presidential candidate?

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Well he says he's not interested in a way that sounds credible to me. I also think that may be a sensible choice for him. He's young enough to bide his time instead of the risky path to unseating an incumbent president. I believe Obama will likely hold on to the Presidency for a second term and the Republicans should concentrate on taking the Senate.

Obama in the White House with a Republican Congress would be OK by me.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Regardless of the state's nominal share of costs, I seem to recall that NJ was liable for 100% of cost over runs, and the prospects of being on budget weren't looking so good.

Now, I can't document this, but know I read it at the time when it was an issue.

0 Replies

ABC/Washington Post is out with a new poll, involving Romney (henceforth called R), Huckabee (H), Palin (P), Gingrich (G) and Christie (C).
The poll of people who describe themselves as "likely" or "leaning" towards the Repubs show (H)- 21%; (R)- 18%; (P)- 17%; (G)- 13%. These numbers are close to RCP's poll of polls from Nov through mid-Jan. Everyone else was in single digits.
What I found interesting was some of the sub-polling-
Incomes of $50K or less: (H)- 26%; (P)- 25%
Whites w/o college degrees: (P)- 26%; (H)- 25%
Incomes over $50K: (R)- 29%
Whites with college degrees: (R)- 30%
Self-identified conservative: (H)- 19%; (R)- 16%; (P)- 14%; (G)- 11%; (C)-11%
Very conservative: (H)-21%, (P)- 14%; (G)- 14% ; (R)- 12%, (C)- 11%
White evangelicals: (H)- 29%; (P)- 22%; (R)- 12%
Anyone not listed scored in the single digits.
ABC/Post acknowledge it is early and particularly on the sub-polls, the MOE is high. But there it is.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Interesting. Thanks.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

realjohnboy's reported poll results above (and others like it) give me the strong impression that the Republicans haven't yet found a real winner. Unhappily the focus appears to be on what I regard as superficial qualities in candidates. Unfortunately, as we have already seen, these can be decisive in presidential elections.

We need some adult leadership - unfortunately the selection process by which they are elected, only partly involves the qualities needed. Sometimes we get lucky as with Lincoln, sometimes very unlucky as with Woodrow Wilson.

1 Reply

This was pointed out to me by RJB.
Its on the Rasmussen sight, and offers a perspective on the POSSIBLE repub candidates, and ranks them in a "first tier, second tier" approach.
Now I freely admit that some of the names are unfamiliar to me, and some of them have no chance of winning the nomination, let alone the presidency.

It does however, throw some interesting names into the mix...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_larry_j_sabato/presidential_possibilities_a_first_line_up_of_2012

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

realjohnboy's reported poll results above (and others like it) give me the strong impression that the Republicans haven't yet found a real winner.

Would you like to offer any promising, not-yet-known contenders you've run across?

georgeob1 wrote:

We need some adult leadership - unfortunately the selection process by which they are elected, only partly involves the qualities needed. Sometimes we get lucky as with Lincoln, sometimes very unlucky as with Woodrow Wilson.

And sometimes the problem is systematic rather than luck-related. I won't repeat my earlier whines about Peter Ueberroth wanting to run for California governor, and California Republicans choosing a nobody over him for his ideological purity. But the topic does justify whining.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I don't yet see any excellent Republican contenders. There are several out there who I would vote for in preference to Obama, but none, as yet who really get my favor.

I have come to the conclusion that it is probably more important for Republicans to get control of the Senate in 2012 than the White House. A paralyzed government is an, at least, satisfactory way to get less government mischief and unwanted brueaucrat intrusion into our economy. Indeed our track record with divided governments is pretty good.

Ueberroth did a good job with the LA olympics, but that doesn't ensure he would have been a good governor. In any event California has reelected the governor who created the so far unbreakable lock the state employees unions have on our legislature. Perhaps there is no hope for us. I suspect it will take a real budget and fiscal crisis in the state government to wake us up .... it is coming fast.

1 Reply

Back in August, 2010, the RNC passed a new set of rules regarding when the states could hold primaries or caucuses. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada could go first. They could schedule their events for February of 2012. Other states would have to wait until after March 1st. If a state violated that rule it could lose some delegates to the Republican Convention (temporarily, probably) &/or be required to award delegates proportionally rather in the more typical "winner-takes-all" tradition.
It seems likely that on Saturday the Arizona Republicans will vote to break the rules. It wants to move its primary to the 1st Tuesday in February. If that happens, the 4 early states will likely move their events to January.
Arizona Repubs will also vote to allow only registered Republican voters to participate in the primary. They could decide to have a caucus instead of a primary.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Ueberroth did a good job with the LA olympics, but that doesn't ensure he would have been a good governor.

Ueberroth didn't just do a good job with the LA Olympics, he also did a good job helping South Central LA rebuild after the riots. Certainly those executive credentials made it more likely that he'd be a good governor than Mr. McClintock's credentials as a bean counter did---or, for that matter, Mr. Schwarzenegger's credentials in playing cyborgs and kindergarten cops. (In retrospect, California got surprisingly lucky with Schwarzenegger.)

I wouldn't be belaboring this point if I didn't thought it illuminates a peculiar weakness of today's Republican party: It tends to worship ideological purity, while disrespecting competence at getting things done for "we, the people". That's why the Ueberroths and Romney don't stand a chance, whereas the McClintock's and Palins rise to power.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I wouldn't be belaboring this point if I didn't thought it illuminates a peculiar weakness of today's Republican party: It tends to worship ideological purity, while disrespecting competence at getting things done for "we, the people". That's why the Ueberroths and Romney don't stand a chance, whereas the McClintock's and Palins rise to power.

I think you have a valid point, but why restrict it to the Republicans? Obama is the poster boy of idealogical purity, gifted with the ability to masquerade (for a while) as a "thoughtful moderate". Jerry Brown, the new governor of California, is a living model of liberal idealogical purity - far more than was Schwarzenegger a model of conservatism.

2 Replies

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know