68
   

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

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Sep, 2011 07:19 pm

BY Ari Fleischer
Quote:
(CNN) -- I'm a Chris Christie fan. He's refreshing, he's raw, he takes on the big challenges, especially fiscal ones, and he's a Republican governor in a blue state, a helpful fact for a presidential candidate. But he's also late -- too late to successfully mount a winning campaign for the Republican nomination.
As the latest, and final, round of speculation about his candidacy peaks -- led by powerful contributors who see the New Jersey governor as the Republican party's best chance of winning the White House -- it's important to keep in mind how hard it is to win the presidency, or even the nomination, and why in the modern -- meaning instant everything -- Internet era of campaigning, getting in this late can doom even the best candidates.
The reason Mitt Romney is faring well so far in the campaign is that he has run for president before, making him a better candidate with a national structure in place to support him. The reason Rick Perry has hit a speed bump is that he's new to running nationally, and by getting in at the buzzer, he didn't leave himself much time or space for error. If Christie were to get in now, he would be swamped by the instant expectations of success, instant demands for access, and instant need to build a campaign apparatus that takes several months to properly create.


The fact his boosters seem to miss is that the difficulties of running nationally are exponentially greater than running in one state. And that's why it's too late for him to run -- at least to run and win

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/27/opinion/fleischer-chris-christie/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Sep, 2011 08:53 pm
http://front.moveon.org/and-now-a-message-about-science-from-rick-perry/?rc=fb.pm
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Sep, 2011 09:07 pm
@JPB,
I don't consider him to be the RINO many of my colleagues swear loudly he is and why the fact that he took a position in the Obama Administration should somehow disqualify him from running for the GOP nomination is something I don't understand. His fiscal proposals seem close to just right and although I'm getting kind of tired of the fulsome way he touts his performance as governor of Utah, from what I know of it, it's a record for which he can be proud.

There's something about him I don't like though. Maybe it's the way he sounds like a writer for Obama campaign ads when he attacks some of his rivals.

I was particularly irked by his tweet: “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy,”

The clear implication here is that it's crazy to not believe in evolution or not trust scientists on global warming.

I think people who do not "believe" in evolution (and all the different things that might mean) are wrong, or posturing but I don't think they are crazy. I will have a difficult time casting a vote for anyone who denies evolution has been operational for billions of years and believes the Bible's version of how the universe and all life therein came into being is precisely correct, but it certainly won't be the sole or most important issue for my consideration.

On the other hand I think there are very good reasons not to trust everything some scientists have been telling us about global warming and placing that issue along side evolution in terms of legitimacy is ridiculous.

What's annoying about Huntsman's comment is that he is not very subtly playing into the theme so many liberals have adopted about conservatives being anti-intellectual and somehow anti-science. It is a theme based on smug condescension which Huntsman is at least unwise to use on fellow Republicans.

I've already expressed in this thread that I am not particularly fond of the GOP candidates attacking one another during the nomination process, but I appreciate why (with the possible exception of Newt Gingrich) they all seem to think they must. Huntsman's attacks have seemed particualry shrill and nasty though and they almost always are poorly recieved by the debate audiences.

He certainly seems to have become this year's conservative of choice for liberals who feel the need to insist there is at least one Republican for whom they could cast a vote, and conservatives who really enjoy being invited to liberal dinner parties. Mort Zuckerman and David Brooks may have both broken up with the One with whom they became so infatuated in 2008, but I believe Huntsman still makes them weak in the knees. I shouldn't take this out on Hunstman, but I do.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 12:48 am
Quote:
Round and round the speculation has swirled over whether New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will jump into the presidential race. After his speech Tuesday night, only one conclusion is possible: Chris Christie is not running for president until such time as he decides he will run for president, which he might announce in a sentence that abuts a previous one denying that he's running for president. Twice he was asked about his intentions. Once he seemed to say he wasn't running. The second time he suggested he was considering it. The effect could only have been improved if he had spoken while circling a mulberry bush.

I wish Chris Christie would run. He's promising truth telling, detailed solutions to problems like entitlement growth, tax reform and foreign entanglemetns-- all of it delivered in an entertaining package. Candidates usually make stiff declarations about how honest and direct they're going to be while planning to be nothing of the kind. It would be a service and entertaining to see someone give it an actual try. It also might smoke out the other Republican candidates into venturing a few plain statements or at least fleeing with less haste from their previous ones.
Would Christie run a campaign as bold as the one he promised Tuesday night in his forceful and wide-ranging address at the Regan Library? Here's how he says he's done it in New Jersey: "It is a simple but powerful message–lead on the tough issues by telling your citizens the truth about the depth of our challenges. Tell them the truth about the difficulty of the solutions. This is the only effective way to lead in America during these times." Later, in his call for strong leadership he said one of America's greatest challenges was "to not become a country that places comfortable lies ahead of difficult truths."

Christie's reputation for blunt talk about everything from deficits to unions and telling off those who challenge him is what's creating the presidential buzz, so he has the aptitude. But in handling the buzz he's not exactly being a straight shooter.
When asked if he was running, Christie directed the audience to a Politico video compilation of his many denials. This seemed to close the door, though not all the way which was the kind of too cute behavior you'd hope someone like Chris Christie stand up and lampoon


http://www.slate.com/id/2304797/

He comes off looking like Colin Powell, they guy who wanted all of America to bow down and beg him to agree to be our President.....**** HIM!
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 09:50 am
Well said!



There is a chance that things could get even more interesting - there is talk that democrat leaders will ask Obama
to abandon his re-election bid if the situation facing the voting public hasn't improved dramatically by January 2012.

With Obama gone, who do you think the democrats will support?

Who will Herman Cain be running against if democrat leaders kick the kid to the curb on New Years Eve?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 10:23 am



Obama, pull it out by the roots - Vote CAIN 2012
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 10:36 am
@hawkeye10,
When someone very bluntly says they do not feel they are ready to be President, I think we should believe him. That was one of the most refreshingly honest personal statements I've heard a politician make in a long time.

I don't think Christie is trying to get people to beg him to run. But, given the lack of broad-based appeal of the Republicans who have declared their candidacy, I can certainly understand why people would want to see Christie enter the race. He'd be an appealing candidate, and one who might have a better chance of winning the general election than any of the others.

Christie does appear to be positioning himself for a leadership role on the national level, but he's not ready to move into that role yet, for whatever personal reasons he has. I think one of Obama's biggest mistakes was moving into a position he wasn't quite ready for, which was my main hesitancy about his candidacy. Just being able to deliver good speeches isn't enough, and Christie knows that, you have to be ready and able to do the job, and, for that, greater experience in leadership roles helps to get you ready. And, right now, not being a candidate is affording Christie much more freedom in delivering his own message--he doesn't have to court voters from any particular segments, he can focus on what he wants to focus on, and he controls his own exposure on the national level. A premature run, and loss, now could hurt his future ambitions, and if he really doesn't want the job, and the considerable stress and responsibilities, of being President at this point in his life, why should he run? He can certainly afford to wait at least four more years.

The only one who is still teasing, and promoting guessing games, is Palin, not Christie.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 10:48 am
@firefly,
Quote:
The only one who is still teasing, and promoting guessing games, is Palin, not Christie.


Quote:
The governor said he was listening to those urging him to run, adding that he was taking it in and “feeling it too.” But he continued, “by the same token, that heartfelt message you gave me is also not a reason for me to do it. That reason has to reside inside me. That’s what I’ve said all along. I know without ever having met President Reagan that he must’ve felt deeply in his heart that he was called to that moment to lead our country. And so my answer to you is just this, I thank you for what you’re saying.”

With that, Christie ensured the speculation would go on.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/christie-faces-surge-of-voices-urging-him-to-run/2011/09/27/gIQAnFNL3K_story.html?hpid=z1

At that moment anything other than another adamant refusal to run was fanning the flames. As for Palin, almost no one cares what she does, she is not a serious contender for the White House.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 11:59 am
@hawkeye10,
I think there's more than a shade of megalomania in that hawk.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 12:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
I find what Christie is saying quite clear. He understands why others want him to run, but that's not sufficient reason for him to run. For whatever his personal reasons are, he just does not have the fire in his belly to run for President right now. He's not being coy about it, he's being very clear that he just does not feel ready to do that at this time in his life. And he knows more about himself than anyone else does--he may have his own questions about how well he could handle the job of President if he were elected now.

The media is hyping the Christie "speculation", for reasons of their own. He's been consistent in saying he does not want to seek the Presidency at this time.
Quote:
As for Palin, almost no one cares what she does, she is not a serious contender for the White House.

That's not really true. Palin has a lot of fund-raising clout, and a lot of supporters, and she commands a lot of media attention and influence. You can't completely write her off as either a candidate or a king-maker. A lot of people do care about what she decides to do.


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 12:11 pm
@firefly,
There was a lot of people in the pub last Saturday night ff.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 12:12 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
A lot of people do care about what she decides to do.


Not serious people, either inside or outside of the political profession. Just a bunch of cranks.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 12:20 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
There's something about him I don't like though.

SNIP

It is a theme based on smug condescension which Huntsman is at least unwise to use on fellow Republicans.


I sense that smug condescension as well. Not just on the science meme but in his general demeanor. I used the word "smarmy" earlier. "Smug condescension" fits as well.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 12:48 pm
@JPB,
Where's Jason Robards?
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Sep, 2011 08:30 pm
@spendius,
Dead.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2011 02:01 pm
After FL's action today, I have the schedule as being:
Jan 10- Iowa caucus
Jan 17- NH primary
Jan 24- Nevada primary
Jan 28- SC primary
Jan 31- FL primary
The RNC claims that NH, Nevada, SC and FL will lose half their delegates.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2011 02:13 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
The RNC claims that NH, Nevada, SC and FL will lose half their delegates.
It will never stick, and they should be disqualified and not allowed to attend the party (AKA Convention)
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2011 02:15 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
I find what Christie is saying quite clear. He understands why others want him to run, but that's not sufficient reason for him to run.
You were wrong as usual, as today some insiders from his camp said that he is seriously considering running.
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2011 04:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I find what Christie is saying quite clear. He understands why others want him to run, but that's not sufficient reason for him to run.
You were wrong as usual, as today some insiders from his camp said that he is seriously considering running.

I suspect that Repubs are growing quite weary of Christie and Palin being coy. With a schedule like I have suggested, either of them will have to file to be on the ballot in NH within 2 weeks. I doubt that either of them will get in.
The affected early states are pretty pissed off at FL, and the RNC appears toothless in enforcing rules. My guess is that, after the super-primary date (around March 6th?), we will know who the Republican nominee will be. And then...
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Sep, 2011 05:06 pm
@realjohnboy,
The gloves are off.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/29/2024 at 01:09:33