It's never too soon to speculate...or is it?

Haha ... this thread is totally absurd. It is absolutely too early to speculate!! But I will anyway ;)

 

I'm hoping for Bobby Jindal. He's the most sincere politician I've ever met, and he would probably be the smartest presidential candidate in modern history. His academic credentials are amazing, and he completely backs it up in person.

 

Jindal could also do well in Ohio because he's Catholic, and he would also have that "historic" factor in his favor, because he's Asian.

It's never too soon to speculate...or is it?

 

A brotha can't be President-Elect one day without peeps saying who will run in 2012!  Damn!

I agree with that Jindal is a very good canidate, however I am hedging my bet with last times favorite Mitt "Evil Eye's" Romney...

 

I think Charlie Christ could be a player.

 

If W had not so desecrated the Bush name, I would say Jeb would be in the running. He was the chosen Bushie to begin with, but when he lost first Governor run to Lawton Chiles in the 1990's Plan B (actually plan "W") bumbled into effect. 

 

As a non republican (I have also been an independent, so I do not say Dem), I would think Huckabee would also be a threat simply based on his demeanor, kind of unflappable like Obama, which is clearly an attribute people want now

I will go a step farther and say that there probably will not be a next election

because we will be involved in another World War and getting nuked around that time. :shoot:

I went with Jindal, but I have not thought too much about it.  No way on Palin, IMHO.  Romney and Huckabee are possibilities.  I wanted Romney as VP.

I jindal is being "primed" as the republican Obama.  I thought he would be McInSanes running mate.

Sarah Palin,  because they were dumb enough to choose her as VP last time.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty

Gov. Mark Sanford

Rob Portman?

Shoot! I thought I had those up there. Thanks!

 

ADDED [You May Change Your Vote].

in an effort to satisfy the social, economic, evangelical, hockey mom, nascar dad, talk radio nutcase, gun toting, religion clinging, big tent conservatives, the republicans will likely nominate a sentient potato.  seriously though, conservatism needs to think about its feelings for a while.  maybe think about what it wants to accomplish.  for far too long, the worst people have set the agenda.  it will be interesting to see how their message changes. 

 

oh and, the closest name above to sentient potato would be sarah palin. 

It's never too soon to speculate...or is it?

 

I think it's too soon. Perhaps when new leaders emerge from the ashes of the GOP, then we can speculate.

^By this time in 2004, by virtue of his keynote speech at the DNC and landslide Senate victory, Obama was on the national radar screen for 2008.  Ergo, I don't think it's necessarily too soon to start sorting out the GOP survivors. (Maybe we could wait unti Inauguration Day, but still...)

Sarah Palin, because they were dumb enough to choose her as VP last time.

In 2008 "they" = McCain and staff.  2012, "they" will have to be GOP voters.  See the difference?  I do think she is a LONG shot.  IMHO.

Indeed, there was a lot of Us vs. Them within the McCain-Palin camp itself. Can't imagine why...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc

"I'm hoping for Bobby Jindal. He's the most sincere politician I've ever met, and he would probably be the smartest presidential candidate in modern history. His academic credentials are amazing, and he completely backs it up in person.

 

Yeeeeah... about that:

 

From time.com http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1668433,00.html

 

"Jindal has made his name by aligning himself with the cultural conservative wing of the Republican Party, fiercely opposing stem cell research and abortion while favoring the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools."

Now I like Jindal even more. ;)

^^Yeah, Jindal is a little on the K-R-A-Z-Y side for my taste.

translation: he's Republican.

 

:)

^No, he's on the just-a-bit-too-far-right-wing end of the social/cultural conservatives. There's a difference. I've voted on more than one occasion for a few Republicans based on their moderate/conservative fiscal policies which was balanced with a more liberal leaning on social issues.

True 'dat.

He has plenty of time to move towards the center, as Obama did.

Good Lawd, we just finished the latest election! 

 

Oh, and you should add Barack Obama to the list as he hinted at the possibility of seeking a second term. 

 

Jeremy

:wtf:

^^As a Republican? Is that wise?

and he would probably be the smartest presidential candidate in modern history. His academic credentials are amazing, and he completely backs it up in person.

 

Interesting statement. I agree Jindal is a bright guy, and in all honesty (even though I'm a card-carrying Dem) he might make a pretty decent prez. I don't know if I'd call him the smartest ever. He's got an ivy league education, but so does Barack, and W, and Bill, and HW etc... He was a Rhodes Scholar, but so was Clinton.

 

The way the Republican party is aligned these days, I don't see them being able to nominate an intellectual to run for President.

^^As a Republican? Is that wise?

 

LOL.  Actually, if he could pull it off, it might be ingenious.  It would guarantee that a Democrat would be in office from 2012-2016. :)

Interesting statement. I agree Jindal is a bright guy, and in all honesty (even though I'm a card-carrying Dem) he might make a pretty decent prez. I don't know if I'd call him the smartest ever. He's got an ivy league education, but so does Barack, and W, and Bill, and HW etc... He was a Rhodes Scholar, but so was Clinton.

 

The way the Republican party is aligned these days, I don't see them being able to nominate an intellectual to run for President.

 

Palin was an inner-leckshool, no?

As a registered republican that willingly crosses party lines, (I proudly never voted for W) I'm declining to vote in this poll. I think its just too soon. I didn't hesitate in my decision to vote Obama, but I'd vote for any fiscally responsible, in tellegant, experienced candidate that recognizes the real problems our country regardless of party. I felt that the issues McCain stressed a few months before the primaries were the issues that he truly felt important and that he would have made the priorities of his administration. (if he'd been given the opportunity). McCain at that point proved to me that he didn't know what was wrong with the America I live in.

 

By that same test, my choice, 3 months before the primaries, was Edwards, with Obama and Hillary coming close behind. Obviously in this election I felt a lot more liberal than in some previous elections. I'm weird, I'm getting more liberal as I age instead of more conservative like a lot of my peers.

 

I intend to withhold judgement of the candidates till I've seen what issues are important to me and to the country and can judge the candidates on the issues they find important again.

I actually anticipate the emergence of a viable 3rd party by 2012, or by 2016 at the latest.  I just can't see the fiscally conservative (and more intellectual IMO) branch of the republican party continuing to bend over backwards to garner the vote of social conservatives.

 

The fiscal conservatives will break off, leaving behind the burdens of having to draw a hard line on hot button topics like abortion, stem-cell research, GLBT rights, school prayers, evolution, etc just to earn the vote of the social conservatives.  For example, the new party platform can be both fiscally responsible and environmentally conscious.  Many moderate democrats and self-proclaimed independents will gladly join them.

 

and he would probably be the smartest presidential candidate in modern history. His academic credentials are amazing, and he completely backs it up in person.

 

Interesting statement. I agree Jindal is a bright guy, and in all honesty (even though I'm a card-carrying Dem) he might make a pretty decent prez. I don't know if I'd call him the smartest ever. He's got an ivy league education, but so does Barack, and W, and Bill, and HW etc... He was a Rhodes Scholar, but so was Clinton.

 

After triple-majoring at an Ivy, Jindal was simultaneously accepted to the world's best law school and world's best medical school, which he turned down to attend (arguably) the world's best liberal arts graduate school. He also did it a generation later than Clinton, when all these schools were even more difficult to get into. So Jindal is still on a whole other level.

The green angle sounds interesting, but other than that you seem to be describing libertarians.  Conservative fiscally without the social meddling.  It seems like fiscal conservatism is tough to build a coalition around because almost everything else costs money to accomplish, including environmental cleanup.  The socially conservative issues actually match well with fiscal restraint because they don't involve money.  Refusing to allow things is free, all you pay for is enforcement, which is usually pretty cheap.

 

That's where the drug war hurts republicans.  It costs a ton of money to wage it, and smug satisfaction is all it accomplishes (people still get drugs, they just pay more).  If fiscal conservatives are looking for a new ally, how about the legalization movement?  Plus they could sin-tax drugs to help balance the budget.  The drug war just doesn't fit with republicans' personal freedom argument, but then again neither do any of their social issues.  It's been a marriage of convenience.

 

I'd like to see the republicans swing back to their old libertarian, individual vs. society angle.  That would put them against mixing church & state, but in favor of Cheney's "freedom means freedom for everybody" gay rights argument. 

and he would probably be the smartest presidential candidate in modern history. His academic credentials are amazing, and he completely backs it up in person.

 

Interesting statement. I agree Jindal is a bright guy, and in all honesty (even though I'm a card-carrying Dem) he might make a pretty decent prez. I don't know if I'd call him the smartest ever. He's got an ivy league education, but so does Barack, and W, and Bill, and HW etc... He was a Rhodes Scholar, but so was Clinton.

 

After triple-majoring at an Ivy, Jindal was simultaneously accepted to the world's best law school and world's best medical school, which he turned down to attend (arguably) the world's best liberal arts graduate school. He also did it a generation later than Clinton, when all these schools were even more difficult to get into. So Jindal is still on a whole other level.

 

If academic achievement/intellect is a path to the nomination, how do you explain the 1) John McCain, 2) George W. Bush and 3) Ronald Reagan 4) Sarah Palin and 5) Dan Quayle. Al Gore wasn't even that good of a student.

 

My point, Jindal will rise and fall on his ability to connect with the public in a meaningful way. My feeling is that as educated as he is, he is far too socially conservative to appeal to a broad electorate. I mean, he seriously believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. And right there, how do I reconcile a Rhodes Scholar who believes dinosaurs and man co-existed and evolution is the work of a divine watchmaker and should be taught alongside actual science.

 

None of this is a hard pill to swallow in Louisiana where the issues are far more local, but these sorts of positions get added scrutiny when you're trying for 63,000,000 votes.

Isn't Jindal a Catholic? The Catholic church does not endorse either creationism or evolution, but they have come out and said that evolution does not conflict with the bible or one's faith. Might not sound like a ringing endorsement, but from the Catholic church it really is.

 

Which makes me think Jindal is just saying he believes in teaching creationism alongside evolution as a way to pander to the social conservatives. Which brings us back to the various camps in the Republican Party....

I was under the impression that Jindal is a Pentecostalist. Wiki states (somewhat ambiguously):

 

Jindal was a Hindu, but converted to Catholicism in high school.[5] He has also offered his religious testimony before Baptist and Pentecostal congregations.

 

Either way, he's stated that Intelligent Design is part of "the very best  science," and that's stuck in my head like a snakebite.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqaIDmXzuaE

 

 

Since Ron Paul is off the list, I vote Jindal.

 

KOOW I didn't read/hear anything in that clip where Jindal actually believes that earth is 4,000 years old or anything like that.

 

I was under the impression that Jindal is a Pentecostalist. Wiki states (somewhat ambiguously):

 

Jindal was a Hindu, but converted to Catholicism in high school.[5] He has also offered his religious testimony before Baptist and Pentecostal congregations.

 

Either way, he's stated that Intelligent Design is part of "the very best science," and that's stuck in my head like a snakebite.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqaIDmXzuaE

 

 

I agree...Bobby Jindal for President 2012

Tom Ridge

Since Ron Paul is off the list, I vote Jindal.

 

KOOW I didn't read/hear anything in that clip where Jindal actually believes that earth is 4,000 years old or anything like that.

 

I was under the impression that Jindal is a Pentecostalist. Wiki states (somewhat ambiguously):

 

Jindal was a Hindu, but converted to Catholicism in high school.[5] He has also offered his religious testimony before Baptist and Pentecostal congregations.

 

Either way, he's stated that Intelligent Design is part of "the very best  science," and that's stuck in my head like a snakebite.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqaIDmXzuaE

 

 

 

Intelligent design is a subset of "Creation Science," and a tenet of Creation Science is that all the phenomena that empirical science attributes to billions of years of development actually occurred over the course of 6,000 years, roughly the period of time that lapses over the course of all the "begats" at the beginning of the New Testament. Jindal  states in no uncertain terms that Intelligent Design is "science" (which it isn't), therefore one can infer that he is an adherant of Creation Science. At best he's pandering to the extreme elements of the GOP's Christian base; at worst, well, he's a moron.

The Governator - because nobody picked him yet

I think Huckabee or someone with his level of support from the religious crowd will be Ohio's first choice.  As someone who is very well church-ed up, I can tell you that the election results by many are being interpreted as:

 

1) The fault of the GOP for nominating McCain, who has no culture warrior credentials.

2) A real cause for fear that America is at risk of going the way of Sodom and Gomorrah without a very quick turn back to Christian principles.

 

Now maybe Huck can't make it through until Ohio's primary date, but I think if Ohio gets the chance to vote on a full slate of candidates, a former Baptist minister is going to play well.