GOP Candidates: Who does the best against Obama?

I know I may get flak for this, but I think the smartest of the group is Newt. But he is unelectable.

It'll be a difficult task to beat Obama. He has lost a lot of the independent vote he had last election, but I think they will gravitate more to a moderate like Romney. But He doesn't sit well with hard line conservatives or tea party candidates and they may not come out to vote for him.

Paul is too old. Palin too stupid. I think it'll be Huckabee as the nominee. I also think he represents the GOP standard and status quo, so it'd be a "same old" vote.

 

If the Republicans' best hope is a miracle run equivalent to Bill Clinton's, more power to them. Clinton was also one of the most talented campaigners in recent history. There is a guy like that in the 2012 field, but he's the sitting President.

I don't think anyone thinks Obama is guaranteed to win re-election, but it doesn't look good for the Republicans. A basketball team that's trailing by 20 in the fourth quarter can look to examples of teams overcoming such deficits, but that doesn't mean they're in a good position to win.

 

That isn't a flaw in my thinking, because I never said any such thing. I simply said that betting on a miracle (that some unknown happens to be one of the best campaigners of a political generation) is not a particularly strong situation to be in. It could certainly happen. It's within the realm of the possible, which is precisely why I said no one believes that a second term is already in the bag for Obama.

 

I could only wish those that favor limited government had someone as smart and politically savvy as Bill Clinton.

 

I think when Clinton was elected it had zero to do with his campaigning and all to do with Bush's complete indifference and the way the democrats shut down congress. And since then the congress has basically followed the same pattern.

 

The people that favor limited government that have real talent you generally find in the private sector. If you were of the mindset that government wasn't all that effective, why would you participate in it?

 

To change it in the way that you and they favor (i.e. limit it)?

 

It's small potatoes to making your mark in the private sector. For those on the Left, making their mark in government is their highest calling.

 

If it's not particularly important to you guys, why do you complain so much about government?

 

Your little game is boring. Go find someone else to play.

 

No, I was just highlighting your attempt to have your cake and eat it too: pretend that government is far too unimportant for real achievers yet, on the other hand, speaking in dire tones about how Obama (and "the Left") is destroying our children's futures.

As usual, though, when your lack of logic is exposed and you can't defend your position, you hit the eject button of "you bore me, please stop talking to me." No worries, I'll keep pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and you can keep pretending that you're bored by it.

 

Yeah, that's right; you got me. I understand why people on the Left can't see my point--why wouldn't someone want to work in government, even to downsize it?--but like I said, you're just playing a little game and I'm not interested in playing.

 

Do you really believe Arnold Schwarzenegger is the kind of person of which I'm speaking? And what if someone believes that "public service" is a self-congratulatory title given by people who wish to suck off the teet of the citizenry? Jesus, how much more privatizing of gains and socializing of losses by people who don't understand the inner workings of their own businesses (paging Misters Willumstad and Blankfein, paging Misters Willumstad and Blankfein) can we take?

It may be surprising to some, but there are people who (gasp!) may be even more brilliant and eloquent than our Washington masters who believe that Washington is a waste of time and the best way to deal with it is simply to try to avoid it as much as possible.