Who will run in 2012

[SubGod22]

Is there still a chance? Paul Ryan for President in 2012?

[SubGod22]

:( Ryan to Skip 2012 Presidential Race

[1979Shocker]

We might know who will be in the Republican 2012 Presidential race, but do we know who will actually be the Republican candidate.

The Amazing Kreskin says he knows and also who the winner of the election will be.

http://www.amazingkreskin.com/kreskin-on-jimmy-fallon-7252011/

[Maggie]

:( Ryan to Skip 2012 Presidential Race

:( too. That said, he may have made the right decision - he is only 41 or so. Still, I would have loved him to be in the race.

[SubGod22]

:( Ryan to Skip 2012 Presidential Race

:( too. That said, he may have made the right decision - he is only 41 or so. Still, I would have loved him to be in the race.

I agree.

At this moment (Still need to do more research) I think I'm leaning towards Perry. Paul has some great ideas but leaves me thinking WTF sometimes. I like Bachmann, but something just doesn't quite sit right. Maybe she's needs a little more seasoning? Don't like Romney. I'm hopeful that I'll still like Perry when I look into him more and that he can step in and take down Romney.

If the general public fails and we get yet another term of Obama, Ryan better run in '16! I do think that just about everyone being mentioned on the Republican side would be better than what we currently have.

[Maggie]

:( Ryan to Skip 2012 Presidential Race

:( too. That said, he may have made the right decision - he is only 41 or so. Still, I would have loved him to be in the race.

I agree.

At this moment (Still need to do more research) I think I'm leaning towards Perry. Paul has some great ideas but leaves me thinking #### sometimes. I like Bachmann, but something just doesn't quite sit right. Maybe she's needs a little more seasoning? Don't like Romney. I'm hopeful that I'll still like Perry when I look into him more and that he can step in and take down Romney.

If the general public fails and we get yet another term of Obama, Ryan better run in '16! I do think that just about everyone being mentioned on the Republican side would be better than what we currently have.

I am leaning toward Perry as well (he is a impressive campaigner); but certain things that work well, politically speaking, in Texas may not translate to New Hampshire, etc. We will see.

If certain former governor from Alaska decides to enter the race (which I think would be a mistake on her part), Bachmann's chances for the nomination diminish exponentially. Furthermore, I think they will take each other down in some sort of weird death spiral. And I like Bachmann more than Palin – Bachmann knows her argument – none of this “common sense solution” nonsense.

Paul doesn’t have realistic chance at the nomination – he is getting his opinion out there (which I think is, in part, his goal) and that is both good and bad (in my opinion). What Paul needs to do is NOT run as a third party candidate – I am not sure he will because it could harm his son’s political career if he bucks the GOP too much (and I kind of like Rand). But you never know with Paul – he marches to his own beat, has his own drummer.

[SubGod22]

Fair points. I don't see Palin entering this time. But if she did, Bachmann would take the hit for it.

Perry does potentially have some issues with parts of the country, but I think his record in Texas can make up for some of that. While the nation as a whole has struggled, Texas has done pretty well for itself. Is that enough to make up for the other stuff? Time will tell.

[RoyalShock]

Ron Paul will NOT run for anything but the GOP nomination. He stated this unequivocally last time and I have no reason to believe he will stray from it.

I read an interesting column today which asked, what is the worst-case scenario of a Paul presidency? What that does is expose just what the POTUS can and can't do without a cooperative Congress. It's just not as scary as many people want you to believe.

In closing . . . Rand Paul 2020 (after a two-term Ron Paul presidency) :)

[RoyalShock]

Fair points. I don't see Palin entering this time. But if she did, Bachmann would take the hit for it.

Perry does potentially have some issues with parts of the country, but I think his record in Texas can make up for some of that. While the nation as a whole has struggled, Texas has done pretty well for itself. Is that enough to make up for the other stuff? Time will tell.

I think Woodrow Wilson could have done as good a job as Perry in Texas. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that existing (ie. inherited by Perry) conditions in Texas (tax and other business law/regulations) is what has helped that state look good in the current economic climate.

Perry lost me the moment he publicly hitched on to that prayer event and played it for all he thought he could reasonably get without going over the top. Good campaigning, maybe. And four years ago I might have bought in, but now I find such exploitation offensive.

[Maggie]

Ron Paul will NOT run for anything but the GOP nomination. He stated this unequivocally last time and I have no reason to believe he will stray from it.

I read an interesting column today which asked, what is the worst-case scenario of a Paul presidency? What that does is expose just what the POTUS can and can't do without a cooperative Congress. It's just not as scary as many people want you to believe.

In closing . . . Rand Paul 2020 (after a two-term Ron Paul presidency) :)

I hope you are right but Paul did run on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. He also didn’t support the McCain/Palin ticket in 2008. He hasn’t said this time around, if he loses the nomination, if he will run (he will have the cash – Paul’s supporter’s fork over the dough) as a 3rd party option. But in fairness I don't think he has been asked the question.

As for a Ron Paul Presidency – yes, it would be scary in terms of foreign policy an area where the Executive Branch has most of the influence. On the domestic side, I think it would be amusing – Paul would probably play pin-the-tail on the bureaucratic agency – get marked by Paul and he would attempt to shut them down.

P.S. Stop trying to create the Libertarian version of the Kennedy’s or the Bush’s. ;-)

[Maggie]

Fair points. I don't see Palin entering this time. But if she did, Bachmann would take the hit for it.

Perry does potentially have some issues with parts of the country, but I think his record in Texas can make up for some of that. While the nation as a whole has struggled, Texas has done pretty well for itself. Is that enough to make up for the other stuff? Time will tell.

I think Woodrow Wilson could have done as good a job as Perry in Texas.

Ummmm, that is wrong. Or so says the gypsy down the street.

Perry has been governor of Texas for 11 years (he took over from Bush). I think you are too quick to dismiss his stewardship as simply landing in the right place at the right time.

As for his faith – for what I understand he is the real deal. And frankly, he caught a ton of criticism for that prayer deal. Being a southern Republican – he didn’t have to do that. Preach’ in to the choir as they say.

[RoyalShock]

On foreign policy, pulling back doesn't mean ignoring. That's a fear-mongering tactic. I also think it's perfectly valid to question all the aid being doled out in the middle east, including Israel. Heck, we give far, far more money to their enemies anyway. Is it crazy to think now that we've built Israel into the foremost military power over there that they couldn't handle Iran or anyone else that poses a credible threat? (ie. they have the power to back it up) I don't think Iran should be ignored, but we shouldn't be taking the lead in dealing with whatever it is "we" think they are doing. I fully believe in the concept of "blowback" that comes from meddling in foreign affairs, particularly in that part of the world.

I find the attacks on Paul's foreign policy just a bit ironic, considering all the "America first" patriotism out there. I would think that bringing most of our military back (thereby creating a strong defense), stopping or reducing the billions in foreign aid and trying to institute measures that keep jobs here and promote more trade qualifies as "America first". Yet opponents try to paint him otherwise.

Paul may have the money to mount a 3rd party run, but I think he'll turn over whatever he doesn't spend to the PAC he started in 2008 with his leftover funds, Campaign for Liberty.

[Maggie]

But ignoring is just what Paul advocates. He said some fairly naive things about foreign policy at the last Republican presidential debate, asking “What’s so bad” about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. You can’t sugarcoat those comments. He was very explicit and very clear about his intentions. And they fall right in line with what he believes. There is nothing wrong with that – at least he says what he thinks.

Pulling back foreign aid, troop deployments (say the 30K or 40K in Germany, for example) is all well and good. And it should be discussed….but Paul’s position is very extreme.

“America First”? Well, part of that doesn’t include retreating into a cocoon. America’s presence in the world has been a force for good over the last 70 years (good for the U.S. and others) and it absence will create a vacuum which could be filled by countries who don’t have U.S. interests in mind. We live in a global world now – the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are not even the equivalent of the Maginot Line. Paul's strict Libertarian philosophy makes a lot of economic sense – but it fails the reality test when it comes to foreign policy and human nature as it relates to foreign policy.

[RoyalShock]

Paul has never said to ignore what's going on in the world. What he says and believes is that we shouldn't get involved militarily unless a threat is posed against the United States. It's too far a logical leap to say he advocates living in a cocoon.

From a war and trade standpoint, the world has been global since the invention of sea-going vessels. The dynamics are different now, but I don't think it's enough to justify getting militarily entangled in regional conflicts (ie. middle east). Our involvement over there since at least the '50s fostered the anti-US/anti-west sentiment that led to terrorist attacks on our soil as well as other western nations. And for the record, neither myself or Paul are saying "blame America" (that's an intellectually lazy and dishonest mischaracterization made by fear-mongers). The terrorists are to blame (Paul voted in favor of going into Afghanistan), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand why it happened and factor that into our foreign policy. If anyone thinks military action is the primary answer to global terrorism, then we are in a perpetual war with little hope of resolution or peace. I don't see how we can fight an enemy without borders forever unless we're willing to live in poverty for generations.

Does Iran getting a nuclear weapon make me nervous? You bet it does. And I have every confidence it makes Paul nervous as well. His point is, where and when do we get the right to interfere with a sovereign nation? Whether their nuclear research is for power or bombs (we don't know the answer to this anymore than we knew whether Iraq had WMDs), do they or do they not have a right to national defense?

You (and others) say all this foreign aid has benefited the U.S. Can you quantify the benefits versus the cost? Can anyone? We have a serious economic and monetary situation right now and the only candidate questioning the wisdom of sending billions of dollars to other nations is Paul. Seems like common sense to me.

[Maggie]

I never said Paul “blames America” – but it sounds like he does at times – but I don’t think he does….well maybe a little based on his historical narrative (misplaced as it may be). If you think my opinion of Paul is derived from an intellectually lazy and dishonest mischaracterization – ok…….you can think that – but maybe you should get off your intellectual couch and meander outside your own intellectual bubble. Paul’s point is “where and when do we get the right to interfere with a sovereign nation”, you say? We do when it affects U.S. interests – and it is not a right but a necessity. Same is true of any other nation on this planet, from the beginning of time.

And no, will all due respect, my logical leap is predicated on Paul’s own words - listen to what Paul had to say. RON PAUL Furthermore, his historical narrative, and yours, is flawed – to assert our foreign policy in the 50s ultimately resulted in 9-11 (for example) is absurd. Talk about a logical leap of faith.

It is not just foreign aid that has benefited the U.S. but our military presence and nuclear umbrella. Can some of that be cut back – yes. That was probably true 40 years ago. But that doesn't mean we ignore the responsibilities we assumed after the WWII.

Ron Paul’s foreign policy instincts come crashing violently against reality in much of the same way President Obama’s economic policies do.