Check out some similar questions!

CliffARobinson · Dec 9, 2011, 01:24 PM

With Candidates surging and then falling from the top spot, it looks like Newt Gingrich is staying on top with over 34% Popularity. Who do you like and why?

earl237 · Dec 9, 2011, 04:51 PM

I like Romney the most because he is the only one who is electable, sensible and not crazy, that's about as polite as I can be to the other candidates. Huntsman looks like a great candidate on paper, not sure why he is so low in the polls, I think he would be a good running mate for Romney, great foreign affairs experience as ambassador to China, and being from Utah makes a good regional balance.

Wondergirl · Dec 9, 2011, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by earl237

Huntsman looks like a great candidate on paper, not sure why he is so low in the polls

If anyone could beat Obama, he could. The Tea Partiers don't like him; he's too close to being a centrist.

CliffARobinson · Dec 9, 2011, 05:10 PM

Full Disclosure: I am left of Center, although registered Independent and do not plan on voting for any Republican Candidate. However, speaking from a purely political and strategic viewpoint, I agree that Huntsman has the most Centrist and "Adult" personality, but I think in addition to the fear of being a Centrist, he also worked for Obama, and that is a big 'No No'.

I think Huntsman would be a great Secretary of State for Romney and Gingrich the VP, from a strategic point of view - not that I want that to happen personally ;)

tomder55 · Dec 9, 2011, 05:30 PM

1. Huntsman... Effective former Governor and very effective Ambassador to China I disagree with some of his postitions but overall I think would make a fine President.

2. Santorum 2 term conservative Senator from a very blue state . He was a key investigator in the House during the House banking scandal and proved he could do that so called 'reach across the aisle 'stuff as a Senator. He has the right foreign policy positions and is a strong social conservative. He may be my favorite left in the field.

3. Bachmann. Has all the policy positions I agree with ;but I think there is a reason that the US doesn't usually elect members of the House of Reps directly to the Presidency.

The rest I'll try to rank.

Romney.. I'll settle for him because I think he has the best chance to beat Obama .

Perry. Supposedly a strong Governor and his record appears to back that up. Still he doesn't appear to have what it takes to be a national leader.

Oh the field drops dramatically

Newt ,did his best work years ago as minority whip . When he took the majority he played 2nd fiddle to Clintoon and in reality ,only got done the triangulation issues that D.ck Morris allowed Clintoon to back. I see his tenure a lost opportunity ,and it is telling that shortly after he became speaker of the House he was booted out . I will vote for him holding my nose if he is the nominee.

Paul is the only candidate I'd sit the election out if he's nominated . I like some of his rhetoric about fiscal policy and limitted government . But his foreign policy is bizarro tin-foil hat nonsense.

My choices either opted to not run (Mitch Daniels ,Bobby Jindal ,Chris Christe ) or dropped out early ( Tim Pawlenty ) .

I think Romney will be the nominee because behind the scenes ,Newt has not taken the time to build a national campaign. He may catch a break in Ohio but he let the deadline pass for filing to run in the primary. He reportedly does not have the precinct organization necessary in Iowa. He doesn't have a full slate of delegates in New Hampshire ;and he missed the filing deadline in Missouri. His whole staff quit in May and he has not adequately replaced them .

Bottom line is that he could do less than expectation in the key early states and fuse out like others have done before him.

The wild card is Paul. There are lots of little Ronulans infiltrating local Republican organizations . They also show up at things like straw polls . He could end up being the anyone but Mittens candidate.. ( shoot me kill me . )

Wondergirl · Dec 9, 2011, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

1. Huntsman ...Effective former Governor and very effective Ambassador to China I disagree with some of his positions but overall I think would make a fine President.

Huntsman, who speaks Mandarin Chinese, will easily engage with the ("enemy") Chinese culture after gaining significant experience living and working in a Chinese-speaking environment.

Fr_Chuck · Dec 9, 2011, 06:51 PM

They all appear to be still old school and I don't see a lot of change from the regular old system we have always had.

CliffARobinson · Dec 9, 2011, 06:56 PM

Tomder, a great analysis. I don't have the same policy positions that you do, but a great job breaking down the field, you should Blog about this stuff. Wondergirl, I agree about Huntsman, although I got kind of concerned when it appeared he was backing off his bold "science" statement about Global Warming. Chuck, that is the problem overall, will we ever see a Leader again? Leaders like Truman, Franklin and Teddy?

Fr_Chuck · Dec 9, 2011, 07:14 PM

Yes, There is no one person who really stands out.
I am even wondering at this point if Hilary Clinton may want to run on the Rep party. She seems more Rep than some of those running.

earl237 · Dec 10, 2011, 08:05 AM

Looks like Gingrich is already starting to self-destruct, he came under fire for saying that the Palestinians were in his words, an "invented" people, Palestinian leaders said it was one of the most racist statements they had ever heard and other Republicans have also slammed him. I knew it was just a matter of time before his mouth and/or past got him into trouble.

Wondergirl · Dec 10, 2011, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by earl237

the Palestinians were in his words, an "invented" people ... racist statements

I don't know about "racist," but it certainly is ignorant. Palestinians were some of those called Canaanites in the Bible.

tomder55 · Dec 10, 2011, 12:49 PM

He's right of course... but that is almost ancient history at this point... and pointless to bring up in this contest; except to demonstrate to all his superior knowledge of historical minutia.

tomder55 · Dec 10, 2011, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I don't know about "racist," but it certainly is ignorant. Palestinians were some of those called Canaanites in the Bible.

Ahh but Newt would point out to you that they don't call themselve Cannanites or even Phillistines . They call themselves "Palestinians " from Palestine ;which was the Roman name for the larger known ME .

Now that would cover a larger territory than Gaza the West Bank ,and Israel. But you don't see the Arabs of Syria ,Jordon ,Lebanon, calling themselves 'Palestinian' . The modern Palestinian lives in territory that was formerly Jordan and Egyptian territory . There was in fact no mention of a Palestinian people between 1948 and 1967.

So Newt gets the game piece on the 'Trivial Pursuits ' board. You see ;if you like he had a PHD in Modern European History from Tulane University then you too could cite such useless non sequiturs to the issue at hand . At least this time he's factually correct. His scholarship of the last decade has been in counterfactual history.

parttime · Dec 10, 2011, 02:49 PM

Hi Cliff, I think Perry smuggled some of that "good stuff" across the border and passed it to the others, but for some reason their bogarting it from Huntsman. Good question.

paraclete · Dec 11, 2011, 01:12 AM

Well Tom I think it is clear Jewish occupation of "Palastine" predated Arab occupation which, of course, predated Israeli occupation. There is a whole lot of history in between including several clearances, massacures, etc.

I don't think there is much historical evidence to suggest the ancient peoples still occupied Palastine at the beginning of the twentieth century and those who were there were not developed enough to have even formed their own local government. This argument is ridiculous. The UN ruled on the matter in 1948, the arabs didn't like the outcome and there we are, still fighting what is a mid twentieth century war.

tomder55 · Dec 11, 2011, 04:45 AM

Yes ,that is why I referenced the history that Newt was talking about... the period between 1948 and 1967 .
Everything else is silly;and so is Newts argument . Nations are inventions as a whole and if the idea of a Palestinian is an invention then so is an Australian or American.
Newt is good at referencing irrelevencies .
Here is the whole issue in a nutshell...
The whole world agrees with the concept of the so called "2 state solution" except the Palestinians. They want the whole loaf.

paraclete · Dec 11, 2011, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

...
The whole world agrees with the concept of the so called "2 state solution" except the Palestinians. They want the whole loaf.

That is just the best of the very bad ideas, yes the Palestinians want the land back just as the Israeli's wanted the land back, and to all intents and purposes they have a certain part of the land back but it presents an unworkable solution with Israel stuck in the middle. The Palestinians have made such an a$$ of themselves that no one wants them as part of their country. Egypt and Jordan don't want them back and Israel is happy to get rid of them. I expect that 99% of Palestinians just want to get on with their lives, as always it is the 1% that make the trouble. The only solution is a one state solution and that is not going to happen

I couldn't expect yesterday's man to come up with a solution any more than Clinton, Bushes and Obama have, the whole saga is something we all should stay out of.

tomder55 · Dec 12, 2011, 04:02 AM

The only solution is a one state solution and that is not going to happen

That of course would be the end of the state of Israel... But I suspect you wouldn't mind that.

tomder55 · Dec 12, 2011, 04:09 AM

By the way ;Saturday Newt expanded on his statement ;he nailed it.

"When the president keeps talking about a peace process while Hamas keeps firing missiles into Israel, if we had a country next to us firing missiles, how eager would we be to sit down and negotiate?"

paraclete · Dec 12, 2011, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

That of course would be the end of the state of Israel... But I suspect you wouldn't mind that.

Not necessarily and no. A one state being Israel with a minority Palestinian population but as you said before the Palestinians don't want that, and the religious jews don't want that. The Israeli's think the Palestinians breed like rabbits and will outnumber them eventually but what happens when a society becomes more affulient is that the birth rate drops. There also is the issue of repatriation of the Palestinians scattered all over the middle east, the Israeli's don't want to go there either. The arab states want a two state solution so they can get rid of the refugees