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

No, your "main part" is you think he'd rather finish up in Afghanistan first - btw, you might as well wait for Sisyphus to finish rolling up that boulder - and you don't see that Petraeus could do much more about Afghanistan as "commander in chief", which obviously contradicts your first point.

As to more potential candidates, yes there are several, but you miss the point: the point is to ensure Obama ends up as a one-termer. He's a disaster so far and things may get worse.The Republican nominee should be the one better equipped to win the 2012 election - not a goal you seem to share

The point is -- who do you think are the "real" candidates? You assert that there are real candidates who are not on the list, who are they? Is this top secret, confidential info?

(And no, that's not my main part.)

Then I missed your main part about why you think the general won't run for the Republican nomination: what was it? Separately, I wonder about your apparent interest in additional names of potential Republican candidates - why would you be so concerned, if you would never vote for them?

Only the Republican party can tell us who the real candidates are I guess. After all, no one can run for the Republican nomination without the Republican party allowing them to.

I don't think the General can run for President unless he leaves the military first.

Yes, that's obvious; nobody argued the opposite view.

It's currently a little difficult for him to even be exploring running for President in 2012. He would need to have an organization in place by the middle of 2011 to have a reasonable chance of running for the job.

I'm saying there is no reason why a liberal, who has no intention of ever voting for a Republican candidate, can't form a reasoned opinion on who will win the GOP nomination in 2012. However, if they allow their personal distaste for a particular would-be candidate to rule that individual out, they won't be forming a reasoned opinion.

In other words they need to be objective. A tall order to be sure but I think it's possible.

You're very ill-informed: a Petraeus 2012 presidential candidacy was considered by the Bush political advisers at least as early as 2007, and certainly before the 2008 election. A party organization exists - so if the general runs and looks most likely to win he need not worry about political logistics.

I think he should stay in the army and run.

I like the 3rd worldliness of it...

RJB is an honest man, but I don't know why we bother arguing with the far-leftist fringe here: they flee when their inconsistencies are exposed - not before they mark down all posts pointing that out so they don't have to see them any longer - and they can't focus long enough to read their own rags:

That was from a 2008 article in The American Prospect - unlike Sozobe and Parados, Obama's people obviously read it. Bye guys, happy 2011!

Put your shovel down, you're digging yourself a big hole, LtCol Flagg, and get back to your main line of work.

Actually, that's exactly what you did, flee to the security of "ignore", when I pointed out a string of inconsistencies in your posts. Quite the hypocrite and you adressed this to an even bigger hypocrite, if that's possible, Finn dAbuzz.

Yes HS,., and?

It makes it difficult for Patreaeus to run in 2012. Wow.. that's what I was saying...

Romney has to be considered the front runner simply because he has the advantage of a pre-existing organization.

Of course Hilary Clinton was the front funner in 2008, so organization isn't everything, or at least it's not impossible to create an effective one in a relatively short time.

Pawlenty has been working on his since he entered politics. The more someone want to be president the less I trust them and Pawlenty's ambition quitely seethes very hot.

To me, Mitch Daniels seems the least interested in being president

The List-
I more than MM am responsible for the list of potential candidates he posted. I did research prior to the launch of this thread and the site he linked to was one of the things I found. He offered to handle the posting of names so I gave him my notes.
The link is not an "official" Republican party source. It is not clear what its agenda is. But, frankly, that strikes me as somewhat irrelevant; it is a list of names which we put out there.
I don't think it would be appropriate for me or MM to strike names of people we might consider to be improbable.
I am more concerned with the notion that there are people who aren't on the list who should be. That possibility was alluded to earlier. As I recall Rick Perry (Gov of TX) was not on the list.
It is early. As we plod along there will be winnowing.
Thanks for following this thread. It's gotten more response than we expected.

rjb, That's the problem with trying to arrive at the republican nomination for president; it's still too early, and we don't know who'll come out of the woodworks that might look promising later on.

In many cases, even 12 months is too early. Maybe, somebody's guess will be a good one!

That's not to say this thread doesn't have value; it does, because it will educate some of us on the potential runners that we are not aware of.

Agreed, it is early. We may run out of things to talk about.
I have read a number of conflicting articles about when candidates should declare an intention to run. Some pundits argue for "sooner" in order to get more media attention, attract staff and raise money. Others suggest "later" due to the possibility of burnout. I suspect that Huckabee and Palin will wait because they can keep their talk shows going.
Mark your calendars for February 10th-12th. CPAC, the largest conservative group, will be meeting in D.C.
(More about that after I get a dose of liberal news from NPR).

I occasionally vote Republican. I highly doubt I will vote for the Republican presidential candidate this time, but our esteemed moderators have made it clear that this is to be a discussion re: the prospects. That's something I'm very interested in.

You made an assertion about "real" candidates not on the list -- the natural follow-up question was OK, who are those real candidates not on the list? That you refuse to answer that question is odd, but whatever.

While taking Patraeus out of the race in 2012 may have been a happy side benefit for Obama, he wanted and needed him in Afghanistan first and foremost.

I really don't know how the thumbs work, and don't bother with them. Does thumbing a post down hide it from anyone other than the "thumber?" I should hope not.

Ignore works just fine for the one remora who swims these waters.