Michele Bachmann halts presidential campaign

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

US Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has ended her White House campaign.

The Tea Party favourite made the announcement in Des Moines, Iowa, where she finished a disappointing sixth in the state's caucuses on Tuesday.

SOURCE (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16416324)

Last updated 4 January 2012 at 16:55 GMT

[Dowly]

Good thing she quit now and not in the unlikely event that she'd be the president
and had to make some tough decisions. :O:

[mookiemookie]

...and nothing of value was lost.

[Sailor Steve]

Thank God for small favors.

[CCIP]

...and nothing of value was lost.


Yup :O:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Good thing she quit now and not in the unlikely event that she'd be the president
and had to make some tough decisions. :O:Yeah... imagine how difficult it would be to decide correct nail colour for evening's banquet with president of Soviet Union...



:O:

[Tribesman]

...and nothing of value was lost.
Are you forgetting the comedy value?

[von Kinderei]

What a shame ...

And she was gonna win too :har:

[vienna]

Are you forgetting the comedy value?


Not to worry...the GOP has plenty of clowns left... :DL

[Kongo Otto]

Yeah... imagine how difficult it would be to decide correct nail colour for evening's banquet with president of Soviet Union...
:O:

Soviet Union? Did i miss something today? :hmmm:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Soviet Union? Did i miss something today? :hmmm:Well... that was reference to GOP "candidates" earlier comments. I'm not sure anymore who of those clowns should get credit for this one - don't remember exact wording but idea went as follows: "Its important to maintain strong defence against USSR"

...nice to know, thank you Mr./Mrs. GOP candidate.

[u crank]

I'm sorry, but does this woman make Sarah Palin look more intelligent?

Is that possible?

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm sorry, but does this woman make Sarah Palin look more intelligent?

Is that possible?

Bachmann can speak with correct grammar and syntax, give her ideas in an understandable fashion and is actually litterate. She doesn't ramble and will not get lost in a discussion of personal philosophy. So no, she is far more intelligent than Palin. In fact, she doesn't even belong in that category. I think she and the rest of the so-called Tea Party are a NeoCon ruse, and I disagree with those politics, but she's not an idiot.

[Skybird]

Bachmann can speak with correct grammar and syntax, give her ideas in an understandable fashion and is actually litterate. She doesn't ramble and will not get lost in a discussion of personal philosophy. So no, she is far more intelligent than Palin. In fact, she doesn't even belong in that category. I think she and the rest of the so-called Tea Party are a NeoCon ruse, and I disagree with those politics, but she's not an idiot.


You're sure...?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/michele-bachmann-quotes-_n_885756.html

[Takeda Shingen]

You're sure...?

Are you saying that Michelle Bachmann is unable to form complete sentences? If the answer is 'yes', then I would disagree with that. If the answer is 'no', then I would place her above Sarah Palin.

[u crank]

Bachmann can speak with correct grammar and syntax, give her ideas in an understandable fashion and is actually litterate. She doesn't ramble and will not get lost in a discussion of personal philosophy. So no, she is far more intelligent than Palin. In fact, she doesn't even belong in that category. I think she and the rest of the so-called Tea Party are a NeoCon ruse, and I disagree with those politics, but she's not an idiot.

Respectfully agree. "Intelligent" may have been the wrong word.

[geetrue]

I had to mute the sound everytime she was on the air ... :yep:

[Skybird]

Are you saying that Michelle Bachmann is unable to form complete sentences? If the answer is 'yes', then I would disagree with that. If the answer is 'no', then I would place her above Sarah Palin.
I disagree with those parts where you said "far more intelligent than Palin" and "no idiot". :) Her arguments often were crude, to put it mildly, and her rethorics malicious.

[Penguin]

Anybody who actually believes in "Intelligent Design" does not know the meaning of either words.
Especially the first word should never be used in connection with said person.

[Tribesman]

Anybody who actually believes in "Intelligent Design" does not know the meaning of either words.

I believe in Intelligent Falling, after all gravity is only a theory.

[soopaman2]

What gets me going is how anyone even thought she was a viable candidate this long.

Goes to show that there is still alot of dumb people out there, willing to vote on looks and religion alone.

[u crank]

As a Canadian with a fascination for American politics, I've read or heard a lot of about her positions, and they seem pretty extreme. I know she's not the only one who holds these views nor did she come up with them. I only wonder how extreme it can get?

Quote

... " I had to mute the sound every time she was on the air" geetrue.

Some times that not enough. I still know what she's saying!

[soopaman2]

My cousin said to me that if she was as ugly as Hilary Clinton she would have lasted half as long. At least Mrs Clinton knows what she is talking about before she says it.

I agreed. Bachmann was trying to appeal to a small segment of the population (religious tea-nuts) and got told in Iowa where to go with that divisionist and hateful rhetoric she spews.

I only hope Minnesota votes her out of congress so she can go back to her gay hating, government aid accepting "orphanage" she runs. Maybe then she will talk alot less about government programs giving useless people money, since she is one of the people her tea-nut kind crusade against...

Hypocrasy in politics? *gasps*

[Takeda Shingen]

Anybody who actually believes in "Intelligent Design" does not know the meaning of either words.
Especially the first word should never be used in connection with said person.

I believe in intelligent design.

[u crank]

I believe in intelligent design.

I believe in a creator. Given the scope, beauty, and complexity of the design, I can only assume he is intelligent.

[Sailor Steve]

I believe in a creator. Given the scope, beauty, and complexity of the design, I can only assume he is intelligent.
Unfortunately belief has pretty much nothing to do with fact. Without evidence, it's just wishful thinking.

[Takeda Shingen]

Unfortunately belief has pretty much nothing to do with fact. Without evidence, it's just wishful thinking.

Have you been dead?

[vienna]

Have you been dead?


I'm going to presume, neither have you; ergo, "wishful thinking"...

[Sailor Steve]

Have you been dead?
No. Neither has anyone who talks about it. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying that believing isn't the same as knowing. I don't know either way, but I've reached a point where I'd like see at least a little evidence.




Speaking of which, I have to go to a funeral. Back later.

[Penguin]

I believe in intelligent design.

Oh I do believe that there are intelligent designers out there, but I haven't met one yet :smug:. However I believe in intelligent design when I see some works of Scandinavian Industrial Design, where form and function are both fulfilled.

I believe in a creator. Given the scope, beauty, and complexity of the design, I can only assume he is intelligent.

It's not the point if a creator exists or not or a creatorness, at least we all know that we have been created.
The point is that complexity can be a sign of an intelligent designer or an overly, unnecessary complicated design. Take programming: is the complex code superior or the one which is simpler but performs better. Something complex is not always better for your task, but it certainly can enhance the experience you have with the game ;).

Which brings us to the task of the creator: why he put us onto planet Earth and if everything is part of a big plan, perfectly designed and clearly written to the last comma.
Did he foresee the extinction of the Dodo and developed him only that some eco-guys can moan about animal extinction? Or would an intelligent designer not put some randomness into his work, something which often leads to astonishing results.

We're really leaving Bachman here a little - to me, her words about "Intelligent Design" reveal no philosophical thoughts about our existence but only an attempt to bring Creationism onto the agenda, bringing religion back into the state as a pseudo-compensation for the felt power loss of the Christian Right.

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm going to presume, neither have you; ergo, "wishful thinking"...

No. Rather, that you, Steve and myself do not know. We have not been dead, so we do not have the experience of an afterlife with our god, or a lack of such an experience. Nor were we there when the entire universe either exploded forth from a tiny dot of matter or didn't do so at all. Many of us take things as a matter of wishful thinking, whether religious or not. To ridicule something to which no answer can be given is a foolish thing.

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh I do believe that there are intelligent designers out there, but I haven't met one yet :smug:.

Well, that wasn't very nice.

[Penguin]

Well, that wasn't very nice.

Nah, I have friends who work as designers, they'll understand. I for myself have too much respect for art to call my little attempts of creativity at work "design" :cool:

But, the real question, which comes to my mind, reading only the written communication, is: what you did you mean by the words "intelligent design". I mean uncapitalized do the words not stand for this wacko temple of thought which goes by the name of "Intelligent Design". If you do really believe in this stuff, check out my answer to crank.

[Takeda Shingen]

Nah, I have friends who work as designers, they'll understand. I for myself have too much respect for art to call my little attempts of creativity at work "design" :cool:

But, the real question, which comes to my mind, reading only the written communication, is: what you did you mean by the words "intelligent design". I mean uncapitalized do the words not stand for this wacko temple of thought which goes by the name of "Intelligent Design". If you do really believe in this stuff, check out my answer to crank.

Ah, I see, it was all about word games and mockery. I should have spelled it out right off the bat. My bad.

I believe that our world, it's ecosystems, the symbiotic relationship of organism and the universe by extension is so perfectly balanced and intricate in both it's micro and macro design that it almost certainly could not have happened by chance. This would almost be akin to a room of monkeys typing out a novel. As such, I see it only as logical that the mechanics of life and evolution of species occur only through the divine intervention of a creator, or at the very least a mind greater than mine.

I do hope that my pitiful words were able to at least make my intended statement discernable.

[vienna]

No. Rather, that you, Steve and myself do not know. We have not been dead, so we do not have the experience of an afterlife with our god, or a lack of such an experience. Nor were we there when the entire universe either exploded forth from a tiny dot of matter or didn't do so at all. Many of us take things as a matter of wishful thinking, whether religious or not. To ridicule something to which no answer can be given is a foolish thing.

It is not my intention to ridicule; it is a simple satement of fact that no one has "come back from the grave" with a definitive answer. As Sailor Steve pointed out, there is no conclusive evidence to support either a creation story or an afterlife condition. There are so many differing creation theories and so many afterlife beliefs (an empty void, reincarnation [in several different scenarios], heaven-or-hell juudgement, etc.) given by so many cultures over so many millenia, the only way to rationally approach the question is to simply ask "Where is your conclusive proof". Asking if someone was ever dead is not an argument, it is simply trying to place the onus pf proof on the other party while sidestepping the need to provide proof one's self. This tactic can be seen in itself as a mockery or ridicule of the core topic and the arguments for or against. So the question is, Takeda,...

Where is your conclusive proof?...

[Takeda Shingen]

It is not my intention to ridicule; it is a simple satement of fact that no one has "come back from the grave" with a definitive answer. As Sailor Steve pointed out, there is no conclusive evidence to support either a creation story or an afterlife condition. There are so many differing creation theories and so many afterlife beliefs (an empty void, reincarnation [in several different scenarios], heaven-or-hell juudgement, etc.) given by so many cultures over so many millenia, the only way to rationally approach the question is to simply ask "Where is your conclusive proof". Asking if someone was ever dead is not an argument, it is simply trying to place the onus pf proof on the other party while sidestepping the need to provide proof one's self. This tactic can be seen in itself as a mockery or ridicule of the core topic and the arguments for or against. So the question is, Takeda,...

Where is your conclusive proof?...

Asking if someone had died is an excellent argument. It places emphasis on the purpose of any religion or science, for that matter; namely the explaination of the unknown. In that vein, death is the ultimate unknown. None who have ventured into it's bonds have ever returned. The afterlife, as the central theme of any religion, therefore remains a mystery to all. It is a matter to be taken on faith, much like the bulk of the theoretical sciences, most especially pertaining the the beginnings of our universe.

Proof? I'm not attempting to convince you of anything, vienna. I simply stated, in general fashion, what my view was. I made no attempt to place it above your own; only asking that it recieve the very same respect that I afford to your's and others. However, I have been on GT long enough to know that I should not hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

[vienna]

Asking if someone had died is an excellent argument. It places emphasis on the purpose of any religion or science, for that matter; namely the explaination of the unknown. In that vein, death is the ultimate unknown. None who have ventured into it's bonds have ever returned. The afterlife, as the central theme of any religion, therefore remains a mystery to all. It is a matter to be taken on faith, much like the bulk of the theoretical sciences, most especially pertaining the the beginnings of our universe.

So, basically, you're saying the subject is, after all, "wishful thinking"...


(Oh, and yes, I do respect yours or anyone else views; I merely wanted to point out the shift of onus...)

[Penguin]

Ah, I see, it was all about word games and mockery. I should have spelled it out right off the bat. My bad.

I believe that our world, it's ecosystems, the symbiotic relationship of organism and the universe by extension is so perfectly balanced and intricate in both it's micro and macro design that it almost certainly could not have happened by chance. This would almost be akin to a room of monkeys typing out a novel. As such, I see it only as logical that the mechanics of life and evolution of species occur only through the divine intervention of a creator, or at the very least a mind greater than mine.

I do hope that my pitiful words were able to at least make my intended statement discernable.

Yup, it's all more clear to me now :yep:. There might be also our different cultural background involved. Here, we tend to throw Creationism and ID all into the same bowl. An interesting point of view about this question is presented in the film "Religulous" by Bill Maher. Here he asks the original old-school Christians, the Vatican, namely a guy who works in the Vaticanian planetarium, about Creationism. As backwards as those guys are often, even this guy wipes such unscientific believes and doesn't find it even worth discussing.

Your thoughts are something different. I can relate to this. I am overwhelmed by the complexity and weirdness when we leave our human (Newtonian) physics and watch how the laws of physics are in the micro and the very macro size: strange, complex, overwhelming and presumably random.
Same when I see some breathtaking things on Earth, in nature: the mind-blowing complexity of an ecosystem or just the breathtaking awesomeness of a waterfall.

This is something where I have discussions about; with people who are believers. They see it as a proof for the awesomeness and big brains of a creator. However they have the ability to link scientific findings and their belief in god - which is ok for them and to me. But the desperate search for some dino prints next to some human footprints we see in the US looks laughable, even to them. Hell, why do some people do not seem to be able to bring together faith and science? This is what looks so strange, from the European POV - like I mentioned before: it's all about a political agenda, not a philosophical question.

However, as the good agnostic that I am :know:, I still challenge you to bring an example why a complex system could not be created by randomness rather than by planned design.

[Randomizer]

It is a matter to be taken on faith, much like the bulk of the theoretical sciences, most especially pertaining the the beginnings of our universe.

Theoretical science does not require faith, just the opposite actually, real science demands skepticism which is the implacable enemy of faith.

It also requires the ability to analyze empirical information and draw logical conclusions from the data. Science also make predictions that are backed up by empirical data whereas religion can offer only ritual and magic.

Comparing the two is disingenuous in the extreme.

[Penguin]

Regarding the question of death: in my eyes the burden of proof lies upon the people who believe to have an answer. I go with Steve in this topic: I don't know and I don't have a better theory than you guys, but if you claim something to be true: bring on the arguments for it.

I have heard different stories of people who were declared dead by medicine. Some came back, being angry at the people who took them back to life, as if those suckers took them away from something beautiful - the proverbal light, together with a peaceful feeling; others were happy to be revived because they felt awful things, fear and pain. I had a friend who even did both: he wanted to off himself, was saved and came back fighting at the doctors who revived him, but he was happy to come back, as he felt (saw?) terrible stuff - he didn't want to go. Maybe those near death experiences are only caused by the body's very own drugs, maybe a they show something like "a spirit of life" - meh, hope I don't sound to hippy-ish :DL - fact is I don't know, and neither does anybody who believes in a higher being.


(Btw: I think an awesomely interesting discussion derived from a topic about a less-than-mediocre presidential candidate :up:)

[Skybird]

Ah, I see, it was all about word games and mockery. I should have spelled it out right off the bat. My bad.

I believe that our world, it's ecosystems, the symbiotic relationship of organism and the universe by extension is so perfectly balanced and intricate in both it's micro and macro design that it almost certainly could not have happened by chance. This would almost be akin to a room of monkeys typing out a novel. As such, I see it only as logical that the mechanics of life and evolution of species occur only through the divine intervention of a creator, or at the very least a mind greater than mine.

I do hope that my pitiful words were able to at least make my intended statement discernable.
The greatest mystery to me still is that something exists at all: this cosmos, life, reality, space, my mind perceiving all this, computing the electrons racing in the neurons forming my brain. Why exists not simply nothing? and does it all really exist in the way I believe it does, just because my senses produce input to my brain in exactly those functioning patterns their biological design allows and orders them to function in? In the end, the world is just neural electric micro-potentials in my brain - I do not be in contact with anything "real" out there, but I deal with my mental expression, my idealistic eqiuvalents of the things and subjects I refer to and that I believe to perceive - I form images which I then take as "reality". And I think this maybe could be a big mistake, causing a lot of human suffering, and fear about death and limited lifespan of all things being.

I agree with you that it all seems unlikely to have come by random chance only. However, we only are able to figure about this small fraction of the universe that is referred to by our sciences as the observable part of the cosmos - that part that light had time since the last big Bang to travel thrpugh and reach us. There must be more than just saying "It was a Big Bang happening", or "it'S all just an accident", or "luck; random chance".

However, the imagined deities established by religions currently present as a theoretic dogma, offer me neither satisfying answers, nor any condolences when sometimes my mind dares to surf this unbelievable abyss the cosmos is at both directions of the dimension scale: the astronomical and the subatomic level.

And the older I get, the more I think both the question and the answer have been given form and existence in one singularity, by the mere fact that here this thing I call "me" is sitting and thinking about all this, stunned, amazed, with wide open eyes and a wide open mouth, gazing at a miracle that maybe it has formed and created all by itself. Maybe the question - already is the answer, and the two are not really different and are not two different things at all.

Maybe it all is about nothing else than the cosmos becoming aware of itself.

But that still does not answer the question from the beginning: why are there things, cosmos, existence? Why isn'T there simply nothing? How is all this possible?

:salute:

The fault maybe already starts with that we think. The boundaries of our thinking patterns, of our languages, already filter our perceptions and plans, and decide on how we create conditions for new experiences emerging. A glimpose of the truth we maybe only can gain at the cost of going beyond our-selves, forgetting our-selves, transcending our-selves. Seen that way, any lecture given and any book written about these thoughts, already is one lecture and one book too much, and all labelled religion is a sacrileg.

[u crank]

We are leaving Bachman.

My problem with her and others like her is trying to legislate morality. Usually done with a gun. [Taliban.]
Free thinkers, regardless of beliefs on creation and design can't and won't accept it.

Believing or not believing in any thing does not make it true or not. That's magic. It works the other way round. It's up to us to choose,or not. Nothing we do changes the facts. If there was definite proof there is no discussion.

Lots of interesting stuff. Great read

[vienna]

Maybe those near death experiences are only caused by the body's very own drugs, maybe a they show something like "a spirit of life" - meh, hope I don't sound to hippy-ish :DL - fact is I don't know, and neither does anybody who believes in a higher being.

I have often considered the differing descriptions of 'near-death' (and some 'out-of body') experiences in the same way; the body's generating of substances in response to a very critical situation, something akin to flooding an unknown infection with a very broad antibiotic. In the case of the afterlife 'experiences', maybe it is the result of the brain crashing, like a hard disk in a computer; maybe what those people are seeing is the 'life flashing before your eyes' sort of thing as a flood of data (memories, ideas, etc.) as unleashed by a brain trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff as it struggles to set the situation right. It could very well be like the varying reaction of people taking LSD; those who have psychological issues will tend to a "bad trip" while those for whom life is sunshine and kittens will tend to have a "good trip". There is a belief in some cultures that the thoughts one has at the time of dying follows them into the afterlife. Someone who had a traumatic cause to their near fatal condition may be still trying to process the cause and the rush of chemicals in the brain trying to sort out the situation may distort or warp the process and the 'conscious' perceptions one has coming out of the near fatal experience may be colored by the brain's processes. On the other hand, someone who has come back from an experience caused by a non-traumatic situation (prolonged illness, reovery from a coma, etc.) may tend to a "beautiful light" experince. Add to the brain's processes at the tine of the 'near death' the subconscious influence of one's faith beliefs, philosophies, or expectations in life of an afterlife, there is further 'coloring' to push the 'experience' to the good or to the bad... :hmmm:

[Skybird]

Thanathology was kind of a "hobby" for me in my university days, and I had read a lot, probably all of the mjaor empirical studies that had been done until then, amongst them the comparisons and descriptions by Kübler-Ross who focussed on the individual experience of the single subject, and the immense empirical, inter-cultural comparisons done by Karlis Osis and Erlendur Haraldson who examined hundreds and hundreds of NDEs from various cultures, including India, America, and Europe. One of their preliminary conclusions was that dying experiences follow the same basic format in structure, but differ in culture-depending content. In other words: the ride is taken in the same car model, always, and on the same road, but the car's colour varies depending on the place the person lived in.

However, thanatology of this kind - maybe necessarily - is purely descriptive and empirically collective, due to the subject it examines: and that is not death itself, but interrupted, reversed dying processes. The attempts done in this direction in the 60s and 70s have been followed by a considerable wave of medical doctors angrily writing books in the 80s and 90s that tried to declare that NDE are folly and nonsense, isisting on that death has to be understood as final and nihilistic, and that dying is a lonely dirty thing in the hospital, and the brain drugs itself to make life - that comes to an end in death - at least can bear the fact that it exists, and then gets deleted.

In the end, I do not find both movements that much helpful. Neither NDE-writers and medical sceptics can work around the fact that we simply do not know anything more about death than before. But for the NDE-pros I can feel at least an emotional sympathy. For the sceptics in the medical field, and the nihilistic attitude their broadsides against NDE research have defended, I feel only icy desinterest.

Maybe the fact that organ donations are needed/wanted, but can only be had at the price of not waiting until the person indeed is organically dead, but that the organs must be taken from a body still alive, has something to do with these doctors aversions against NDE research. The death criterions like heart death, brain death, etc differ from time to time and from country to country, and over the past four decades the time at which a dying person already is declared as "medically dead", has been antedated more and more. It even is like that "braindead" means something slightly different by medical details in Germany than in the United States, and there are more such differences between nations. The criterions in general have been tailored over the past couple of decades to declare somebody dead earlier and earlier, to improve the opportunity to take usable organs from the body.

What do we know more about death from all this, having been feeded by NDE romatics as well as medical sceptics and organ donation advocates?

Not one bit.

[Sailor Steve]

No. Rather, that you, Steve and myself do not know. We have not been dead, so we do not have the experience of an afterlife with our god, or a lack of such an experience. Nor were we there when the entire universe either exploded forth from a tiny dot of matter or didn't do so at all. Many of us take things as a matter of wishful thinking, whether religious or not. To ridicule something to which no answer can be given is a foolish thing.
I'm not trying to ridicule. It's true that if we haven't been dead then we can't know, and if we haven't been alive again we can't tell anyone. My tenet is that if you don't know whether there is an afterlife then to believe in one is indeed wishful thinking, even if it turns out to be true. I don't disbelieve in an afterlife or a creator, I simply state that there is no real evidence. Speculating is fun, concluding one way or the other is useless. If it can't be tested, then it's only a guess at best. Ergo, wishful thinking.

[CaptainHaplo]

I am not overly sorry to see Bachmann drop out. I found her to be entirely to polarizing, having a narrow scope of view on many social issues. Still, her stance on a return to fiscal sanity was one I could agree with. Not enough to vote for her in a primary. But at least she was right on SOMETHING.

With Cain out - whether the accusations were legit or not - I now support Newt. While I disagree with him on a few issues, the "major stumbling blocks" that most want to use about him are not real problems for me. Previous marital infidelity? We are all to some degree prone to lust. Global warming ads? He admits he didn't dig deep enough into the subject. Ignorance that is corrected is no crime. Fannie/Freddie? He personally earned less than 40k for writing papers that advised the behemoths to stop the insane mortgage practices that GSE's were involved in. I fail to see how that is unethical in any way.
Seriously - who doubts he would clobber the President in a debate?

Huntsman would be a great presidential candidate - except he is running in the primary of the wrong party. No thanks.

Romney is little more than Obama jr politically. What is truly sad and disheartening is that he doesn't even realize that he is banking on the propoganda of the left regarding the tea party. He honestly believes they will break for him simply because he is the "white" liberal. Sadly, the establishment of the party has made the same mistake. Why they choose to push for a pseudo-conservative instead of a real one is simply an battle for power against the tea party. It is the establishment that moved the republicans into being the "democrat light" party - and they don't want to lose the power they have had for decades. If anyone thinks Romney can beat Obama - he may be Obama jr politically - but he is McCain redux in a presidential election.

Paul is the crazy uncle in the room. The guy is a fiscal genius, but his ideas past that should have run him out of public service long ago. His stances on abortion, legalization of drugs, immigration and foreign policy make him an unsuitable candidate for many segments of the populace - not just of the republican party.

Perry is what the media tried to convince us George Bush was.. He is a likeable guy and not unintelligent in some ways. However, his ability to communicate, his ability to convey coherent thoughts in a way that resonate -simply don't exist consistently when he is on the national stage. The push for the presidency is too big for him - meaning the job most defintely is.

Santorum is not the worst choice. If SC/FLA force Newt out (which would suprise me) and if he is still in the race - he would be my next choice. I question some of his positions as well, but I have seen him parry well the gotcha's and he is showing more strength that I thought. He may very well be a long term contender.

[CCIP]

I am not overly sorry to see Bachmann drop out. I found her to be entirely to polarizing, having a narrow scope of view on many social issues. Still, her stance on a return to fiscal sanity was one I could agree with. Not enough to vote for her in a primary. But at least she was right on SOMETHING.

With Cain out - whether the accusations were legit or not - I now support Newt. While I disagree with him on a few issues, the "major stumbling blocks" that most want to use about him are not real problems for me. Previous marital infidelity? We are all to some degree prone to lust. Global warming ads? He admits he didn't dig deep enough into the subject. Ignorance that is corrected is no crime. Fannie/Freddie? He personally earned less than 40k for writing papers that advised the behemoths to stop the insane mortgage practices that GSE's were involved in. I fail to see how that is unethical in any way.
Seriously - who doubts he would clobber the President in a debate?

Huntsman would be a great presidential candidate - except he is running in the primary of the wrong party. No thanks.

Romney is little more than Obama jr politically. What is truly sad and disheartening is that he doesn't even realize that he is banking on the propoganda of the left regarding the tea party. He honestly believes they will break for him simply because he is the "white" liberal. Sadly, the establishment of the party has made the same mistake. Why they choose to push for a pseudo-conservative instead of a real one is simply an battle for power against the tea party. It is the establishment that moved the republicans into being the "democrat light" party - and they don't want to lose the power they have had for decades. If anyone thinks Romney can beat Obama - he may be Obama jr politically - but he is McCain redux in a presidential election.

Paul is the crazy uncle in the room. The guy is a fiscal genius, but his ideas past that should have run him out of public service long ago. His stances on abortion, legalization of drugs, immigration and foreign policy make him an unsuitable candidate for many segments of the populace - not just of the republican party.

Perry is what the media tried to convince us George Bush was.. He is a likeable guy and not unintelligent in some ways. However, his ability to communicate, his ability to convey coherent thoughts in a way that resonate -simply don't exist consistently when he is on the national stage. The push for the presidency is too big for him - meaning the job most defintely is.

Santorum is not the worst choice. If SC/FLA force Newt out (which would suprise me) and if he is still in the race - he would be my next choice. I question some of his positions as well, but I have seen him parry well the gotcha's and he is showing more strength that I thought. He may very well be a long term contender.

Good analysis!

I personally still see Gingrich as very much the same type of establishment candidate than Romney, albeit with somewhat more socially-conservative views. They have very different personal styles and campaign approaches, but ultimately I don't expect them to come out especially different in office. I don't really believe in either Gingrich's alleged conservatism or Romney's alleged moderate-ness. They're not the same thing, but they're still very much hovering nearest to the center of Republican mainstream, which in today's polarized climate doesn't necessarily mean a good thing. In the end I would expect both of them to fall into being mild, non-offensive neoconservatives without a lot of teeth if they do make it to office. This would please the GOP core, but probably not the broader public.

The fact is that the traditionally-Republican crowd in the US is very fragmented and polarized right now, and neither Gingrich nor Romney are showing a lot of promise in their ability to get it back together. What they'll do by falling in the middle is please neither the moderates nor the Tea Party. Even assuming they make it to presidency, they may have a tough time following through effectively. In some sense then, it might even be good for the GOP to let Obama sit through this period while they try to work out what team R is supposed to be all about.

[CaptainHaplo]

TY CCIP. Regarding Newt as being "establishement" and as a president, I will share a few thoughts and hope to hear your views on them.

Newt as "establishment" is really humorous to me. Yes, he was a power player in Washington at one time. But because he stuck to his conservative principals during the govt shutdown, he was run out of town by his own party. Now in this primary season, we see senior politicians that have worked with Newt come out against him rather forcefully. These are the power players in the party now. These guys are the ones backing Romney - they ARE the "establishment" of the party. They don't want Newt because if he were to win - he would do what he did before - stick to his guns - but with the bully pulpit of the Presidency to use. This represents a threat to him - which is why they are aiding Romney as hard as they can.

Newt as president - you really see him as being mild? I can't see it. What I can see is him turning things like the State of the Union Address into a classroom lecture to Congress to get stuff done for the American People. I don't think that would be mild. I could see Newt using the bully pulpit exceptionally well to demonstrate to the American people WHY Congress needs to fix the tax code, reform Social Security, return to fiscal sanity, etc - and get them behind the changes. Also important - I don't see Newt trying to go beyond the constitutional powers of the office to try and get his way.

On Romney - the guy raised taxes, appointed liberal judges, his health care plan used mandates (which he still supports for the state but not in Obamacare), part of his staff helped write the AHCA, the housing "salvation" plan that the White House is considering is a further bailout initially drawn up by one of Romney's current economic advisors.... I could go on but is it necessary? If Obama really wanted to change the dynamics of this election, he would ditch Biden and offer Romney the VP job to "help heal the partisan divide of the political structure in Washington, and in the nation".

I will say this - one thing I would love to see the Team R nominee do - is publicly offer Ron Paul an immediate nomination as head of the Fed once he is sworn in. This would solidify not only most Paul supporters, but more importantly would put a hgihly qualified individual in a place where his strengths could benefit the country the most, and keep his kookiness from harming the country.