Secular Right | Reality & Reason

Apr/10

19

Pataki for 2012?

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someoneShare on TumblrShare on Google+

Pataki for Prez?. He needs to flip to being pro-life very soon if he wants to be viable. The only reason I point to this is to illustrate how many names are going to emerge from the woodwork before 2011. Another example, Haley Barbour. He does need to lose weight. We haven’t had a fat president since Harding.

10 comments

  • b.a. · April 19, 2010 at 1:44 am

    I think that any GOP candidate would have to be strong in the south to win the primary, but we’d want someone who does not SEEM too southern or country bumpkin like, with the demeanor of Gingrich or Jindal preferable to that of Huckabee or Haley Barbour. The problem is most of the candidates are neocon to the core….still obsessed with Iran, torture, Al Qaeda etc. People are tired of getting involved in the affairs of ragtag third world countries. They(or maybe just I) want a competent leader who will make our country solvent, rebuild our infrastructure and make us as self sufficient as possible.

  • Author comment by David Hume · April 19, 2010 at 2:27 am

    re: gingrich, remember that he was born in pennsylvania, and only ended up in georgia cuz his father was in the military (moved a lot). so yeah, he straddles the regional issues well. as for jindal, well, the dude is brown. i also think that george w bush was “less southern” than haley barbour would be. bush acculturated himself to being texan, he wasn’t born one (his brothers don’t have southern accents and they’re younger), and texan, especially west texan, is different from the rest of the south. finally, if haley barbour was from virginia or kentucky, it would be different. if he was appalachia, it would be different. as it is, he’s from a black-belt area of mississippi. he’d be the republican version of john kerry.

  • mnuez · April 19, 2010 at 6:37 am

    I’m not gonna cheat and look this up but I’m guessing you’re referring to Taft. Harding was the hot, stupid supposedly-black president, no?

  • Susan · April 19, 2010 at 6:49 am

    Taft was the porker.

  • Susan · April 19, 2010 at 7:54 am

    I’ve heard/read the names DeMint, Coburn, and Ryan tossed about.

  • mnuez · April 19, 2010 at 8:19 am

    On the general subject, I care little for sports and view the political horserace as almost nothing more than that. I can get into the game when it’s the bottom of the 9th and I’ve gotten to know something about the contestants on the island (I’ve always wanted to mix my metaphors) but until then the whole subject is woefully boring. Unless of course Hitler or Gandhi are running in which case I could get interested early on, but last I checked the pack was just comprised of interchangeable unscrupulous, constitution-praising careerist hacks, none of whom is likely to devote our GNP to bringing the Singularity or the Second Coming, so I don’t think I have much to say about any of em. If I’m lucky I won’t know any of their first or last names for another 18 months.

  • Susan · April 19, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Well, in early 2006 I didn’t think Barack Obama would be the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.(Maybe I just wasn’t paying sufficient attention. I figured it would be Hillary Clinton.) So my track record for accurate predictions isn’t great. The New York Republicans I’ve heard speak about Pataki (not that many) don’t seem all that fond of him.

    As for abortion, pro or con, it may be a minor issue by 2012 except for a small minority of voters. Even an ardently pro-life contender might not make much of it.

  • Author comment by David Hume · April 19, 2010 at 11:40 am

    yeah, you’re right re: taft :-)

    As for abortion, pro or con, it may be a minor issue by 2012 except for a small minority of voter

    republican primary litmus test. for *both* parties (remember that kucinich became pro-choice in 2004).

  • Susan · April 19, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    I think abortion, pro or con, might be more of a litmus test when times are good, or relatively good, because it’s a subject that people can, literally, afford to worry about when they’re affluent and secure. If taxes and unemployment are sky-high in 2012, and if–I truly, deeply hope not–we’ve suffered some sort of major terrorist attack between now and then, I can’t see abortion being a make or break issue except for a small number of fanatics on both sides. I’m not going to fret about my right to choose if I’m living in a cave and fighting for my share of roots and berries.

  • Derek Scruggs · April 19, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    Gingrish spends most of his time in California these days, sucking up to the Silicon Valley crowd. That’s something W did too, though a lot of that constituency subsequently felt burned by him. Even take-no-prisoners fiscal conservatives like TJ Rodgers turned on him.

<<

>>

Theme Design by devolux.nh2.me