If the party decides to rebuild in the Huckabee/Palin direction (economic populism, "cultural values", blue collar, "independents"), we may actually get a viable 3rd party for the first time in close to 100 years. While they're at it, they can change their mascot from an elephant, to Palin riding a velociraptor.
They just lost. I imagine that their choices are going to depend a lot on what sorts of things happen in the next few years and how Obama responds. Palin is a joke. No one likes her at all. If that's the hope of that party, I can't see myself voting for a Republican for a long while.
If only Romney wasn't Mormon and didn't try to latch on to the neo-conservative wing in the past few years (and only if a vast majority of people didn't have a gag reflex whenever they saw him for more than 5 seconds). Although I disagree with him a fair amount, I think he would be amazing as a president. Short of that, he'd be great as a party leader. My hope is the Republicans grow some balls and stop kissing the religious right's ass and resurrect Barry Goldwater and Thomas Jefferson.
How about somebody that actually digs small government? That might do something crazy like....I dont know...get some undecided/moderate voters. Fuck it. More unqualified VPs!
Yeah, there's virtually nobody left in the party who actually has principled beliefs in small government. Maybe a handful, at most. Led, of course, by Ron Paul. As far as mainstream currently viable candidates go, however, Romney is the closest.
If Huckabee runs again I'll assassinate him. I'm republican, but he deserves to die for that line about the constitution and God. He is a tyrant and a threat to the institution of ethical jurisprudence, objective pre-ordinance and the functioning body of law at large.
Ron Paul is a schmuck. He has what might be called a decent sense of ethics but abandons any concept of rationality by using heterodox schools of economic thought and blatantly disregarding econometrics for the sake of no particularly well defined ethic. He's also pro-life and has a terrible concept of foreign policy.
Non-intervention is a horrible foreign policy concept? Absolutely not. It's the only logical position. And who cares if he's pro-life. Under a Paul administration, it's left up to the states to decide on abortion. And honestly, abortion is not important really. It affects a very select group of citizens.
Too late for me to get into it, but the Austrian School (and even the Chicago School) of economics are from heterodox.
Non-intervention is his system of ethics regarding foreign policy. George Bush endorsed the same idea in 2000. There's a vast difference between what your ethics regarding what the role of the United States should be are and the way it translates to how you manage reality. Ron Paul's actual foreign policies would suck ass. State's rights is not an issue when it serves to execute tyranny. You've got purposes of government mixed. It should sit within the office of the federal government to secure rights while state governments deal with all particulars of domestic policy.
Jindal/someone else. I can't imagine it'll be Palolin, seeing as they are trying to "86" her already. Piyush Jindal could be a rising star in the GOP. His Palin-like religious nuttiness notwithstanding, he is a fresh face and competent public servant the country needs more of. Plus I like him for an other obvious reason.
Yes. McCain would've done better had he not had to deal with the party pushing him to the right. Choosing Palin to energize the base hurt him as much as his reaction to the economic meltdown. Indeed. I'm so sick of fringe issues (abortion, guns, gay marriage) being deciding issues for voters. Jindal would be a good choice. If (Allah forbid) Obama doesn't perform well, he could negate the hype of the Dems having a black president. It's too bad how much the GOP has abandoned its principles in favor of pandering to the voters. Fiscal responsibility has been out the window and the voodoo economics have seriously hurt our nation. Sadly, the congressional races have forced out a lot of moderate Republicans and left the far right in power, which will at best not restore the party's image. I pretty much never vote Republican, but I hope that this election proves that being in the center is not only the most viable option for a candidate, but best reflects the will of the electorate.
someone who i never heard of, that party needs some fresh faces and fresh ideas. 4 years with no control should be enough to rebuild.
Too early to call, but I think Bobby Jindal would definitely be an ideal candidate, both symbolically and realistically. I honestly hate to say this, but I think the GOP is going to purposefully push for someone who is either a woman or a minority just to combat Obama's symbolic status, regardless of their qualities (obviously it didn't stop the McCain campaign with Paline). *shrugs*
I think the GOP will have to suck it up til 2016; they should focus on working with the new administration to get the economy back on track and put campaigning on the back burner.
Well that's true. We need to bridge the divide between them though. Which is why we must work together in common purpose for the next few years and put campaigning aside until we fix our problems.
very possible. He was ale to build a very strong base from all ethnics and most regions of the country. Also the GOP desperately needs a generational change, which I think will take at least 8 years. My guess is that the next republican president will be someone not very well known now (like Obama 8 years ago). I think they first need to focus on gaining control (or at least reducing the democrat advantage) in congress.
Knowing the GOP, they will not take any of our advice and will continue to be an extremist southern party. This is because taking our advice would mean they have to become more progressive and inclusive, two characteristics that are antithetical to modern day Republican interpretations of conservatism.
If the economy has tanked 4 years from now, Obama is perceived to be part of the reason, and the GOP candidate is decent, that probably won't be true.
Yeah, Nolan will disagree, but Romney would be a decidedly mediocre president. I watched him govern here in Massachusetts and, you know, he didn't do much. He raised fees, sure. He tried to latch himself onto the recent healthcare reform when he ran for President, even though he fought against it while he was Governor. Romney is smug and a dipshit. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4"]YouTube - Mitt Romney - Who Let the Dogs Out?[/ame] So he'd clearly be a hit with a certain number of Republican voters and he has economic "credentials" by virtue of being rich. Still. Salter wanted McCain to choose Pawlenty as his running mate, because of the blue collar/son of a truck driver/Sam's Club Republican appeal he has. Merited or not, he's clearly more appealing than Romney.
I agree that Romney has short comings as a candidate (as I think I mentioned, but am too lazy too look back). As a manager/executive, he would be extremely effective. If the Republicans go towards economic populism and cultural values (ie: Huckabee/Palin/to an extent, Pawlenty), the country is screwed.
I realize you admitted that, you cited the Mormon thing. I'm just refuting the idea that he'd be an effective executive, given that he was a fairly ineffective Governor.
He inherited a huge budget deficit and within a few years turned it into a surplus without raising income taxes. Romney was able to accomplish a lot as governor, especially when you consider he had a state legislature that is 95%+ Democrat. It takes great skill to get anything done in that environment. He seems like a very shrewd manager and negotiator. His work in the Olympics (essentially saving the games in Utah from massive bankruptcy), as well as his work in the private sector, was exemplary. I would love to see what he could do to Washington.
