Dole - Petraeus for 2012: Why Not?

[vince]

I voted for Dole in 1996.

*runs away*
Relaly, teh Republicans talked a much different game in 1994 and 1996. Even in 2000 I was cheering for Bush over Gore. I could say I was wrong, but I am actually not that convinced Gore would have been much better.

Lol.. how much worse good it have possibly been? Terror attacks, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, tax cuts and deficit spending off the charts, a brush with near economic collapse?

 

[jason_els]

Powell/Huckabee would be the ticket to beat. If the GOP wants traction it has got to become less reactionary and more mainstream. Perpetual complaining does not equal leadership. Right now the lunatics are running the asylum and that must stop or else the GOP will lose even more ground as the demographics of the country continue to change.

That's not to say the Dems have their act together either. Health care reform has been rushed and the result is half-assed. Where Pelosi should be running the House with an iron fist in a velvet glove, cooperating with Obama on legislation and dictating agendas, she is weak and indecisive. The Dems have the power now but don't seem to make anything substantial come of it. It's still early, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Calboner]

Powell/Huckabee would be the ticket to beat. If the GOP wants traction it has got to become less reactionary and more mainstream. Perpetual complaining does not equal leadership. Right now the lunatics are running the asylum and that must stop or else the GOP will lose even more ground as the demographics of the country continue to change.

That's not to say the Dems have their act together either. Health care reform has been rushed and the result is half-assed. Where Pelosi should be running the House with an iron fist in a velvet glove, cooperating with Obama on legislation and dictating agendas, she is weak and indecisive. The Dems have the power now but don't seem to make anything substantial come of it. It's still early, but I'm not holding my breath.

Much truth in few words. Well said on all counts. I would just add one thing: Because the Republican Party has become the party of reaction, it is tempting for those who despise the reactionary element in it to rejoice as the party contracts into an ever smaller and more concentrated lump of hysteria, resentment, and delusion. But this is not good for the country. The country needs two good parties, not one band of comparatively harmless bunglers and another band of paranoid lunatics.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

That's not to say the Dems have their act together either. Health care reform has been rushed and the result is half-assed. Where Pelosi should be running the House with an iron fist in a velvet glove, cooperating with Obama on legislation and dictating agendas, she is weak and indecisive. The Dems have the power now but don't seem to make anything substantial come of it. It's still early, but I'm not holding my breath.

Attention all you anti-Obama, anti-Government, anti-liberal, anti-current administration people on the board. Take note to how this critique was formed. You want to be perceived as someone with a valid thought? You don't want someone to respond to you in a negative fashion, or worse, call you a "racist"? This is how you do it.

 

[jason_els]

Much truth in few words. Well said on all counts. I would just add one thing: Because the Republican Party has become the party of reaction, it is tempting for those who despise the reactionary element in it to rejoice as the party contracts into an ever smaller and more concentrated lump of hysteria, resentment, and delusion. But this is not good for the country. The country needs two good parties, not one band of comparatively harmless bunglers and another band of paranoid lunatics.

It's absolutely not good for the country at all. The parties do need to cooperate on issues which are vital to the health and safety of the country. If there is no bipartisanship then that can't happen. Recall 9/11 or Pearl Harbor when both houses and parties joined the president in unilaterally repudiating those events. The farther away from that kind of essential unity we get, the more difficult accomplishing any agenda is. Despite the supermajority of the Democrats, they don't want to appear to be acting without at least some Republican support. They also need to be careful to gauge their performance back home lest they be unseated in the midterms. The supermajority is not everything it's cracked-up to be.

I want the GOP or some other party to be strong and, more than that, acting as a credible loyal opposition. The GOP's pundits are not credible to the country as a whole. I like that Dole is talking, but I ask myself where are Huckabee, Romney, and other 2012 candidates in the current debates? These guys should be leading the party, not Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter. Pundits don't have to answer to anybody, can be as outrageous as they like, and say what they want. Real pols, save for a few on the fringe, can't do those things because that's not how politics really works. It's easy to wave banners and hold marches and give speeches and sponsor tea parties. It's far more difficult to serve on mixed party committees, answer to ethics panels, speak to your constituents, craft legislation, make cloakroom deals, and actually ascend the podium of the House of Representatives or the Senate to say something. Punditry pays well and the best pundits are influential people, no question. But it's not the big leagues. They can claim that this war is good or this law is junk. In the end, they don't have to press the button. They don't have to sign a piece of paper sending men and women into harm's way, they don't have the responsibility of being among the fewer than 1000 people who run this country at the top.

Pundits are always reactionary. They talk about what other people are doing and then critique it. That's the job. You'll never hear a pundit push for an issue that isn't already an issue. Pundits guess about what the president will say, the president makes a speech, and then they talk about what the president said.

So long as the GOP lets the pundits hold the lion's share of public influence, then they won't display the leadership the public demands because reactionism is not leadership. I blame Steele for this, but only partly. The Dems were just as bad during Bush's tenure, refusing to hold him or his cronies responsible for their illegal activities. The only branch that put any brakes on Bush at all was the conservative Supreme Court! I understand that the Dems were nervous to act, not wanting to resemble the Republican congress during Clinton's impeachment, but the truth is both presidents deserved impeachment if not, necessarily, conviction. What we're left with is a legacy of do-nothing congresses too fearful to act with any substance. Congress is saddled with a war they do not want, another war that appears to be in stalemate, a horrendous recession, and no leader willing to stick his or her head out to do something.

Usually when this happens the minority party puts forth a leader who figures he's got nothing to lose and so stumps as the opposition. That person usually gets a nod and credibility whether things work out or not. This isn't happening now. The GOP has no one coming forth who presents serious leadership that the country respects. Palin ain't it. She's no better than a pundit herself and by playing one, she damages her credibility. That no one in Washington takes her seriously doesn't help her position; shoot-from-the-hip people find themselves isolated in the Beltway. The folks who run the country sometimes know what's better for the country than the people and they know Palin won't work. They didn't like Dubya either, which is why they were thrilled (initially) when Cheney and Powell signed-on. Now, I think, they're more circumspect, perhaps realizing that even the best advisers do not make a president. There has to be some substance, some internal compass, to occupy the Oval Office.

Where Obama stands with all that, I don't know. He seems principled, well-spoken, and I don't fear that he'll suddenly stand-up and give the Chancellor of Germany a massage or call the President of Russia by some cutesy nickname. What I do worry is whether he's dithering and agonizing over every decision because he doubts himself too much (like Clinton tended to do in the beginning), or whether he's just always been a follower of polls and advisers like Bush was. The first year is always the hardest. One president said that he didn't become used to being called, "Mr. President," until Christmas of his first year in office. Rookies need time to get up and running, learn to trust their strengths, and to get a feel for how they need to do their job. Obama hasn't been in Washington -- or politics-- as long as many others. He wasn't a governor or a general or veep, which, I think, are good training grounds for being president.

My verdict is still out on Obama. There will be cabinet shuffles and hirings and firings like any other president and I expect that he'll find a path and then we'll see what he's really like. In the mean time, I really want the GOP to dig-up some credible people and put them out there with real agendas and plans. Gingrich had his Contract With America. Now they have nothing except a dizzy Alaskan governor with a big mouth and too many skeletons, a bunch of windy pundits, and some alarming fringe groups.

Attention all you anti-Obama, anti-Government, anti-liberal, anti-current administration people on the board. Take note to how this critique was formed. You want to be perceived as someone with a valid thought? You don't want someone to respond to you in a negative fashion, or worse, call you a "racist"? This is how you do it.

Thank you. Most kind of you to say. :smile:

 

[Industrialsize]

Powell/Huckabee would be the ticket to beat. If the GOP wants traction it has got to become less reactionary and more mainstream. Perpetual complaining does not equal leadership. Right now the lunatics are running the asylum and that must stop or else the GOP will lose even more ground as the demographics of the country continue to change.

That's not to say the Dems have their act together either. Health care reform has been rushed and the result is half-assed. Where Pelosi should be running the House with an iron fist in a velvet glove, cooperating with Obama on legislation and dictating agendas, she is weak and indecisive. The Dems have the power now but don't seem to make anything substantial come of it. It's still early, but I'm not holding my breath.

Huckabee??? I'm not so sure he plays well with the MIDDLE. During the Republican Primary debates he admitted to NOT believing in EVOLUTION. That may work well with the Republican Base but I don't think it will go over well with the independents.

 

[B_New End]

Lol.. how much worse good it have possibly been? Terror attacks, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, tax cuts and deficit spending off the charts, a brush with near economic collapse?

well, after I have seen the way Obama has acted... I just don't know if we would not have been in Iraq or Afghanistan. I simply do not believe anymore that any man with a spine will ever get close to the whte house again. They are biguht and paid for. Gore is all for one world government, which to me means he has too much faith in government, and humanity. It is hard enough fighting the US government, a one world government would be a nightmare.

 

[Calboner]

Huckabee??? I'm not so sure he plays well with the MIDDLE. During the Republican Primary debates he admitted to NOT believing in EVOLUTION. That may work well with the Republican Base but I don't think it will go over well with the independents.

Much worse: Huckabee also said, "I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards." (January 14, 2008; video here, if you are interested.)

 

[briefs]

Lol.. how much worse good it have possibly been? Terror attacks, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, tax cuts and deficit spending off the charts, a brush with near economic collapse?

"Hear! Hear!" With a President Gore there might have been an actual measured response to the WTC attack, rather than the abject disaster of a response that President Bush delivered.

 

[houtx48]

"Hear! Hear!" With a President Gore there might have been an actual measured response to the WTC attack, rather than the abject disaster of a response that President Bush delivered".............AMEN BROTHER TO THAT and i'm not that big of a fan of al's

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Is Bob Dole still alive? Seriously, he could save millions by doing all his campaigning from his nursing home. Come to think of it, Palin could be his VP, and his nurse. I smell a a sequel of "Springtime for Hitler," all performed in the third person.