Osler's Razor

Let's see, Obama's been a bust, Palin's a moron, Romney's a megamillionaire weirdo, Huckabee's a fundamentalist, and Bush is a Bush. It seems that IPLawGuy is the only rationale choice.

IPLawGuy in 2012. Brought to you by Pepsi.
 

Rink Allegro, even though he's a convicted felon (I think?!?)
 

Didn't Rink Allegro die in a July 4 fireworks incident, preventing him from performing in "Firestorm IV: The Key to Explodar City?" I seem to remember seeing that somewhere.
 

There's a lot of time for new candidates to emerge. Obviously, I'll be voting for Obama again, barring a major shift in his attitude, policies, ideals or performance, with which I am mostly happy. In 2016 I'd like to see the current two-party system busted and there be more viable third parties, but since that won't happen...

In 2012, I'd love for the Republicans to run a Palin/Perry or Palin/Huckabee or (gag) Palin/Bachmann ticket. I mean, assured win for my side, right?

The tea party movement has never been grassroots or organic. From its inception in a media publicity stunt by Rick Santelli, through its growth as a corporate-funded attempt to profiteer at the expense of people that really believe in the movement, it has always been about carefully-sculpted PR purveyed to people with more indignation that sense (and before anyone starts, this is the same basic furor that we saw in groups like Code Pink and Camp Casey during the Bush Administration). It seems like a cohesive movement that has brought together all types of delectable people, but it's not something the right could parlay into a meaningful political result because it alienates too many of the swing voters.

The way for the Republicans to win in 2012 is more difficult: they'd have to cut out the far right, both in social policy (no more James Dobson or Pat Robertson or their ilk) and in economic policy (the libertarians need to go back to their basements). There are a lot of people that find the Democratic policies to be unwise, even if they don't buy the "OH MY GOD THEY'RE ALL SOCIALISTS!!" hype, and they'll vote Republican if they think Republicans have an answer to the country's economic woes.

But what candidate fits the bill? Palin gets the far right and tea party crowd fired up, but she'll never sell to the Republican elite and power brokers on the inside. Similarly, Romney and Huckabee have the social conservative chops, but neither one possesses Reagan's charisma. Jeb Bush does fit the bill, but how much would his run be tarnished by the presidencies of his family?

There's three years for a Republican star to rise to prominence like Obama did with the Democratic Party, but I'm not sure that the Republicans can win against an incumbent likely to still be popular (or at least, more popular than a Republican) will be with the majority of his base. I think rather than a 2012 strategy, the Republicans should focus on a strong midterm showing this year (which is likely, but not assured), maintaining that in 2012, and then ramping up to a victory in 2016.

That's 6 years, give or take, to find a superstar figurehead for the party.
 

IPLawGuy and Jenna Bush Hager - assured victory!
 

During vetting IPLawGuy would face a serious obstacle - he has common sense and lacks bias. Application for President: DENIED.
 

Please God, not Sarah Palin or Scott Brown. They both creep me out. There's gotta be better Republicans than them--IPLG?

Obama would be fine with me, as I think he's a big-picture, long-term planning guy and he'll need 8 years to get stuff done.
 

Lane says:

"The way for the Republicans to win in 2012 is more difficult: they'd have to cut out the far right, both in social policy and in economic policy."

Sooo... John McCain?
 

Agreed with Lane's last paragraph that the Republicans are unlikely to risk a real candidate against an incumbent Obama. No one likes to run and lose if they can wait 4 years and not have to run against an incumbent (Biden won't be running). This is why Hillary didn't run in 2004, and why the Republicans could only get Dole in 1996 (who I voted for in my naive youth, before I saw the light).

I'm still on the Obama train, and even if most people I know may be frustrated with a one thing or another, they also would say he's on the whole doing well. I actually think the fact that he's not 100% popular is a sign that he's governing from more from the middle than he gets credit for, and when it comes time to vote, his base will rally around him. The thought of him being able to govern without worrying about reelection is tantalizing, though that may be the liberal fantasy-Obama, whereas he's actually more centrist in his core.

I'd love to see Palin/Bachman, for the most Onion headline potential.
 

Surprisingly (or not so), I agree with most of Lane's analysis:

1. Obama is solid with the Left--no matter how much they complain about him being a "sell out" or a centrist.

2. 2012 is not a year "cut to fit" the GOP as currently organized. Lane is right: they are short on leaders and ideas. The GOP will be back--but they still have not hit rock bottom in a way that demands real introspection and honest change.

In a way the absolute maladroitness of the Dems is retarding the natural process of healing and regeneration necessary for GOP resurrection. The GOP has a false sense that things are getting better for them--because the Dems have been so buffoonish. GOPers should not confuse Dem failure with Republican success.

Lane is right: 2016 is the year for the GOP.

3. I also associate myself with the various endorsements of IPLG from other commenters. He has my vote.

Disagreements:

1. The GOP does not need to jettison the far right any more than the Democrats need to figure a way to get rid of Lane. Big Tents are good.

2. The Tea Party is not "astroturf." In fact, the Tea Party is so grassroots as to be virtually ineffective. However, the anger and uncertainty out there is not a racist impulse or ignorant fear of change. The Tea Party movement is a reflection of the dawning realization that our present course is unsustainable.

It is a raw cry of the heart--but it is as perceptive, sincere, and on-target as it is widespread (e.g., Massachusetts).

The question remains: where does this massive anxiety go? Can one of the national parties co-opt the
collective angst? The GOP would love to--but the Tea Partiers are almost as mad at Republicans as they are the President and the Speaker of the House.

All that to say, 2012 looks to me to be a year of building and experimentation. My choice for GOP nominee: Mitt Romney. Decent fellow who wants the opportunity to run, even though the conditions are not favorable. He will offer up serious ideas in a fairly pleasing and orthodox style.

Other choice: run Barry Goldwater (Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Jeb Hensarling, Mike Pence, etc.).
 

I thought Rink passed away in that unfortunate fireworks accident on July 4th?
I'm also highly disappointed today's post isn't about Michelle Obama calling her daughters fat. I had a whole response planned out for that one.
 

Vote for Moi!

Then Osler might have a chance at Attorney General and getting the sentencing stuff sorted out once and for all!
 

I'm betting that Biden won't be back as VP next election. See him taking over as Sec of State for Hillary and Chet Edwards becoming VP. Thus, Chet will be going toe to toe with Hillary for the nomination in 2016. (all purely conjecture)

Though I see shades of Clinton in the way the 1st years are going for Obama. I suspect the republicans will make big gains in both the house and senate. Unlike Septimus, I don't think Obama has been governing from the middle at all, though the mid-terms will force his hand to do so.
Once he is forced to work with the opposition to get legislation passed, you will see some movement on major policy, much like Clinton did on NAFTA and Welfare reform. I suspect the economy will be recovered by the elections in '12. Thus he'll get his legacy.

Without movement to the center from Obama, the Repubs will dig in and nothing will get passed and he could lose the election as a do-nothing president. He has to be aware of what happened to Bush when nothing got passed (absent expansions of the fed) in his second term because of the dems controlling congress.

I see a Romney/(insert Rep governor of swing state here) ticket losing in '12 and someone new in '16.
 

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Bobby Jindal as a contender in 2012. He seems like the obvious choice for Republicans.
 

Shameless plug for my old boss and current candidate: Vote Kay or Perry might become the President! Just ask Paul Burka!!

Judging by his debate answer last Friday, Perry certainly sees himself as a contender and he's been getting cozy with the Tea Party folks. Get used to it--those guys are driving the bus for the moment and the rest of us are holding on for dear life. Perry's still got to get past Kay next month, though, and that lady's not down for the count.

Obama is tanking on policy now because he's a good campaigner and but lousy statesman. So no matter how bad his numbers get, it's still a huge risk to run against him. I agree with most of the other commenters that we R's won't run our best candidate in 2012 unless Big O's tailspin becomes a full-fledged crash. The best and brightest will continue to feather their respective nests until the 2016 season kicks off. And that one's so far off it's foolish to even think about.

Also, Rink Allegro is innocent. Some one set him up the bomb! All your habeas are belong to him! (I know, 2001 called and they want their internet meme back). Rink could always run a jailhouse campaign, a la Lyndon LaRouche.
 

Rink killed the Spanish Medievalist over a fireworks argument, ran an internet drug ring with his wife, Tina Segue Allegro, and apparently died in a fireworks explosion. With that resume, I think he'd be a shoe-in for President.

I'm surprised Argbf or Grar aren't on the list.
 

I like Dallas_ADA's conjecture -- I have thought my dream in 2012 would be to switch Biden and Hillary, then Hillary can run as incumbent in 2016.

I agree with several as well that while Palin will lead initially (as Lieberman did in 2004), and pick up some states, Romney will rise to the top. He's smart, but not as smart as Obama; he's also too abrasive to win. But I think that's what the R's will have...
 

Justin T:

In re Jindal: he will be 41 on January 20, 2013. Too young.

He has twenty years to pick the most propitious moment to make his bid. Unless the bottom falls out between now and January 2012, it won't be this time.

Let Jindal build a record of achievement and wise executive leadership in LA--then he is presidential timber.

2016.
 

I have no stomach for politics lately. However, I was inspired by yesterday's plea for new music and wanted to suggest that you check out Andrew Bird's "Noble Beast" album. Especially "Fitz and the Dizzy Spells", my favorite tune of 2009. Neko Case put out a couple lovely tunes -"People Got a lot of Nerve" and "This Tornado Loves You". And when you want to get funky -- Black Joe Louis "Sugarfoot".
 

Too young? I hope you mean that he will be too young to win the election but still qualified being that 35 is the minimum age.

However, I don't know if I agree that the electorate would bar him because of his youth. I think that we've reached a point in media/politics that someone young/new/fresh could succeed without experience, like Obama.
 

Michelle Obama.
 

The Democrats have no need to purge me. Officially, I am a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, who do not run candidates for public office. It's true I tend to vote for more Democrats in any race that I can vote in, and that many DSA members consider themselves to be Democrats, but I feel no particular allegiance to the party or its "left" wing.

Also, Anonymous, I think John McCain would have made a better showing, and perhaps won the 2008 election, had he stuck to his moderate chops. The Republicans could do a lot worse than run a moderate in 2016.

Now that I think about it, Jindal might not be a bad choice in 2016. He's a very run-of-the-mill right winger, neither exceptional or fanatical in many respects. I'm not sure that he possesses the credentials, however, to fire up the far-right base like Palin or Bachmann can. A not-bad strategy might be to run a far-right ticket in 2012, let the Republicans experience failure and then point out that without some concessions made to moderates (those that might fail "purity tests" or be called RINOs) the mostly center to center-right populace won't vote for their candidate. Then a moderate ticket with Jindal at the helm would stand a considerable chance of winning.

Assuming, of course, the people do not rise up in a glorious proletarian revolution first.
 

I was thinking Barack Obama, but with RINK ALLEGRO running, well, let's just leave it at that!
 

Romney will get the GOP nod and pick a Senator with foreign policy experience. or perhaps a retired General.

It will be vicious, nasty and close.

And if unemployment is still at 10 percent or more, so long as the Republican ticket doesn't implode, it will win.

"Its the economy, stupid."
 

Lane:

I think you missed my point. I did not say you were a Democrat. Of course, any sporadic reader of this blog understands you are an unabashed socialist who likes to inveigh against the tepid Democratic Party.

My point was that you are an Obama voter.

In the same vein, there are plenty of right-wing nut jobs who love to bash the Republican Party (Sean Hannity for one), but, more importantly, they vote Republican when it counts.
 

Oh, by the way, barring death, resignation or conviction, Barack Obama will be President in 2012 even if the GOP wins the election in November of that year.
 

Well, of course Obama will be there in '12. Bush was president throughout all of '08. The new president will be inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2013.