I still say Bachmann simply because we could use another cultural shock to our politics of identity. The tea party will be fine. Remember the tea party was able to gain in popularity because of the republicans as well as the democrats. Now you have both of them running on more government (stimuli's) and cutting health care which the republicans are trying to keep in some form! At first they said they would repeal health care. The national partys haven't dared to address the 800 lb gorilla in the room- Free Trade. The voters are waiting for a Perot to emerge. I will venture to say that this election the rhetoric will be about our national manufacturing and job creation.
Don't get me wrong. I am FOR the dissipation of the Tea Party. And they were not built by both Democrats and Republicans. Maybe a few of those old Southern Democrats and Reagan Democrats (neither of which has been reliably Democrat for decades) joined up, but every study of the TP's make up shows that it's the same conservative base that's been trying to move the GOP to the right for a long time. They're just louder now. And soon they will be shut up. A new Buckley will appear at some point to humble the new Birchers; it's only a matter of when. I hope that we aren't foolish enough to take the protectionist route. If there's one thing that can really hurt the country (aside from a balanced budget ammendment) it's protectionism. My reason for thinking Perry beats Bachmann is that I know he is a liar. IF I have to accept someone openly hostile to reality itself, I prefer the liar. So really Romney's my top pick right now. And I'm voting for Obama anyway. But the choices in the poll were Bachmann and Perry.
I agree and particularly like either Michele or Sarah while advocating Herman Cain for VP. I can't imagine anyone looking at either a white guy Governor or Ex Governor to save the Country. The Repubs gotta get it right to win in 2012. The Tea Partiers with their votes, money and enthusium brought the Repubs off Life Support and back from the dead not the Establishment Repubs.
I am hoping against reason I might add, that the tea party gets its own seperate identity and actually adopts a less government position over the tax one they started out with.
Do you think there is enough anti-government feelings to push the republican leadership to run a candidate who has appeal to the TP?
Neither women will be acceptable candidates if the Republicans plan to win in 2012. Both are too out there... The only candidate that Obama has to fear is Huntsman.. Huntsman is smart and thoughtful. Mitt Romney is as well.. but Mitt will say ANYTHING to get elected and voters will think he's as big a nut job as Palin and Bachman because of that.
Bachmann or Perry as President of the United States, a turn of events too horrid to seriously contemplate. The only sane alternative would be a self-imposed exile as an ex-pat in Paris, Lisbon or Rome (great weather, food and culture) until the lunacy ends.
I would like to see a woman as president as well but not on the basis of her being a woman. Michelle may not be bigoted but she is a redneck. She stands for the status quo in the republican party. What I would like to see is a woman with "some balls" stand up for "real" Republican values: Fiscal Conservatism and a respect of the constitution: personal liberty, less state intervention in the lives of citizens, and freedom from religion. Bachmann stands for none of the above.
I agree its time we get a woman to lead America. It will be good for us as a nation. Disspelling the perception of us as unwilling to lead with our values of equality by example. Instead we appear to ask everyone else to do it while we have a glass ceiling for woman and minorities, that they can't break through.
I don't want a TOKEN woman president who is a lowbrow sloganeer just for the sake of having a woman president. I am not remotely tempted to support Palin or Bachman. Palin should have a talk show like Glen Beck and Bachman should become and evangelist preacher.
Javablack, this a serious question. What is wrong with a balanced budget amendment? Anything else seems preposterous to me. I balance my budgets (home and work) why shouldn't the government be required to do so?
Was the one last election. This election it looks as if we have pretty much the status quo of candidates. He has governed to the left on most issues and with his policy's. The economy is still down and he will undoubtedly get the blame. When this is all over he will look like the TOKEN. I want to have a candidate thats less of a political insider that has a chance. If we run Michelle Bachmann she can have an edge as the first woman president running against the first black president. I ,believe she can beat the president she doesn't have much of a record to run on and she used to be a LIBERAL. America is searching for outside the beltway leadership.
Strongly agreed. I'd like to see a woman president, but I care more about having a good president (or at least not terrible). I think it's a bit preposterousy to compare a large government serving 300 million people to a household. I think Keynsian theory, while not perfect, is the best framework we have for how the economy works. This requires deficit spending during nasty times to stimulate the economy because tax hikes and spending cuts both slow down recovery by decreasing demand. The critique is often that politicians fail to raise taxes and lower spending during booms. Well, we are a democracy rather than a technocracy, so of course this is a possibility. However, it doesn't improve anything to keep the deficit spending from occurring! Furthermore, on principle, I think straight-jacketing the government into a single economic theory is both undemocratic and technically ridiculous (as anything based on theory must be open to change). I would also not favor an ammendment to enforce Keynsian hikes and cuts and increases and decreases based on market conditions. Policy, especially budget policy, needs to be flexible. One only needs to look at California to see what balanced budget ammendments do to the process. It's even worse to enact such policy in the Constitution, keeping in mind that one thing the Founders specifically added (an improvement over the Articles of Confederation, which most modern conservatives seem to favor without realizing it) is the ability of the government to borrow. If you want balanced budget laws, make it a law that can be passed like normal and repealed like normal. Also most households don't have balanced budget ammendments in place. They have mortgages, car loans, student loans-- the equivalent to deficit spending on infrastructure for a government! The BBA is one of those things that only sounds good in "common sense." To me, this is a red flag. It seems to me more a desperate attempt by the far right to push their will into near-permanent law before their inevitable collapse back to the sidelines, riding on the ignorance of the public concering policy effects (Americans simultaneously hate Keynsian economics while enjoying the effects of its policies).
Honey, Bachman is dumb and has manipulated handouts from the public sector all her adult life. She would be a horrible president.
It's him or Mitt,,,that's it. Unless Christie gets involved which I doubt. Either one will kill Obama, Hell my Aunt can....In two short years he has manged to put us in a worse position spending every dime we do not have, and what's his answer?,,,spend some more.... Obama is the best excuse to hate big Government,,he will be the Loser Poster Boy for it....
I don't think she has any great leadership qualities. I just want change and if we can interrupt the body of established political controls once more, maybe we can see substantial changes in the party system. The issue for me is insiders- if she is predominately TP backed then that will put more pressure on the democrats and republicans to adopt a more nationalist smaller government position. We have changed control in Washington several times in the last 20 years or so and each time we are met with failure. People are upset at the current conditions of American domestic policy- it seems as if everything is done to us not for the good of America, from trade to our immigration laws being enforced, nothing gets settled for the benefit of the nation. The policy's are from the party's positions whether Dem. or Rep. not, because its national in scope , but because its "political rhetoric"! *tastes finger* and *smiles* Thanks Margot The oneterm-inator. I bet when Michelle beats him and he gives his concession speech they will have to escort him away from the podium , while he is shaking his fist yelling," I'll be back!"
Its still early in the election season, and I will say that she has a little way to go to be the Republican Party front runner. It isn't my magical 8 ball that I predict change, in what we see as the established controls in "The party of two politics". I believe the tea party movement is what Newt Gingrich said was, " The Old Perot supporters". I think underlying all this frustration and angst is a helplessness the voters feel over the economic conditions we are experiencing in the country; that they saw were given to us by the government. Now officials are reluctant to use a political solution to give us a more fair economic and trade policy that would benefit America. PEOPLE see right thru that- it can be corrected easily by politicians. We all know it is OK to have a mix of trade policy. We used to have it now we can't? Use tariffs as a tool to engage commerce with other nations. Now the electorate is forced to act against the POLITICS of anti-Americanism and protect themselves by removing threats to their sovereignty. My side made it legal to detain us indefinitely and in secret. Your side made it law that you must carry health insurance. Both sides used debt and called it a plan," The stimuli's:". For their premiere domestic economic policy's, and now we are losing face around the world and even here at home . Our own markets are nervous. Thanks Margot
Bachmann or Perry? What a terrible choice to make. Bachmann is certifiably nuts. Anyone who graduates or even passes within 5 miles of Oral Roberts "University" should be prohibited from driving a vehicle or operating heavy machinery. I mildly liked Perry after he stated that Texas could consider seceding if Washington continued to ignore the founding principles of America. But that was before he announced he was running for president. Now his handlers say he "loves the union" and would never suggest secession. Now he's just another nutball Texan who flaps in the wind with no backbone. I'm sticking with Ron Paul, the only decent Texan (probably because he's from Pennsylvania).
Thank you. But why wouldn't you vote for Ron Paul? Just curious. My biggest fear is that 2012 will be a repeat of 2004. Obama, who is easily defeatable after a long record of ineptitude, will square off against an even more inept Republican candidate and barely squeak by. Just a repeat of Bush vs. Kerry where Bush was easily defeatable, yet the Dems put up the only candidate who could snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
