Potential (Sane) Candidate(s) for GOP in 2012

JoeTheJuggler said:
Not really. There's plenty of evidence that Powell was complicit and knowingly lied to the U.N. I think he's got enough a sense of shame that he would just as soon stay out of the public eye and not have his U.N. testimony scrutinized on the national stage.
Click to expand...
Point. Although I got the feeling he was led up a garden path by people he trusted for info (and really should not have). More a political innocence than deliberate complicity. I could be wrong, of course...

ETA: And he remained in office as Secretary of State for nearly 2 more years after the UN speech.
Click to expand...
He seemed to leave about the time it became clear from on the ground there never was any evidence in Iraq of what he told the UN there was. That is, when his "sources" were proved liars.

Frankly I think he won't want a bar of the GOP, even if they wanted him.
 
He's also pro-choice, which pretty much puts him out of the running even if he were at all interested.
 
Zep said:
Point. Although I got the feeling he was led up a garden path by people he trusted for info (and really should not have). More a political innocence than deliberate complicity. I could be wrong, of course...
Click to expand...

He said, "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Since he didn't have information that would make these "facts" (since they were false), he knew darn well he was lying.

I could point to other specifics in the speech and evidence of what he knew or said elsewhere that show he wasn't simply being led down the garden path.
 
Zep said:
I didn't ask for sane, and I'll have to take your word for it on Quayle. However...is that the only criteria needed for a GOP candidate? Sanity?
Click to expand...

Sadly, it appears quite the opposite. It seems if you're not insane and you want the nomination you at least have to pander to insanity.
 
Piscivore said:
No. The Republican "leadership" have burned all the bridges.
Click to expand...


No, they didn't burn the bridges, that's too small. Instead, they took off and nuked the entire site from orbit. (It was the only way to be sure.)

:D
 
logger said:
Whats wrong with opposing tax increases?
Click to expand...
It would be brain-dead to thinmk that the rich should be spared the pain of chipping in more than the poor to set right what is wrong now. Part of what put us into this jackpot was that some brain-damaged drunk convinced people that it was possible to give a tax break to the people who impose the greatest regulatory burden on government in a time of war. Never worked, never can work. It just leads to the profiteers' bleeding us all dry.

I keep hearing the blithering idiots on right-wing radio jabbering about "leftie share-the-wealth-fantasies," and then complaining that what we really want is to share the misery.

Well, if the bloody drongos want to make us miserable by sending all our jobs off shore, the investor class had bllod well better share what misery there is to be had. The working class did not put this country in the toilet., The investor class did, so it should be on those maggots to fix it now.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
He said, "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Since he didn't have information that would make these "facts" (since they were false), he knew darn well he was lying.

I could point to other specifics in the speech and evidence of what he knew or said elsewhere that show he wasn't simply being led down the garden path.
Click to expand...
Yes, I've heard and read the speech. In my view, that's perhaps assuming facts not in evidence. As a general, Powell was used to his sources of information at least being honest even if they phrased stuff in certain ways (in my very limited experience, the chain of command in the US military is generally frank with assessments). I would also assume that as Secretary of State, he would not be doing his own intel. So at the time of his speech, I can see that someone has assured him all is good with what he has been given, whereas in fact it was a pile of putrid dingo's kidneys.

But anyway! That's another thread, not this one.
 
leftysergeant said:
It would be brain-dead to thinmk that the rich should be spared the pain of chipping in more than the poor to set right what is wrong now. Part of what put us into this jackpot was that some brain-damaged drunk convinced people that it was possible to give a tax break to the people who impose the greatest regulatory burden on government in a time of war. Never worked, never can work. It just leads to the profiteers' bleeding us all dry.

I keep hearing the blithering idiots on right-wing radio jabbering about "leftie share-the-wealth-fantasies," and then complaining that what we really want is to share the misery.

Well, if the bloody drongos want to make us miserable by sending all our jobs off shore, the investor class had bllod well better share what misery there is to be had. The working class did not put this country in the toilet., The investor class did, so it should be on those maggots to fix it now.
Click to expand...

Translated to non-extremist speech, I think this post goes something like:

"It would be greatly unfair to think that the rich should be spared the pain of chipping in more than the poor to set right what is now wrong with the economy and the national debt. Part of what put us into the current financial straits in which we find ourselves was that Bush II convinced people that it was possible to give a tax break to the people who need it the least while presenting the greatest regulatory burden on government, and to do this during a time of high military expenditures.

This, of course, has never worked, and it simply never can work. It just leads to the middle and lower classes being held responsible for the federal debt."


This, I agree with. I also would take this a step further and state that the wealthy who gambled with risky derivatives and set the ball in motion for the economy to end up where it is should be held more responsible for the current debt/deficit than the middle and lower classes. They, the wealthy, gambled with our economy and, after they crashed it, had the gall to turn around and complain about possibly having to pay higher taxes to help the Fed/Gov recover. That's like me borrowing my parents car, making them pay for the gas, driving it into a brick wall, tossing them the keys while telling them "**** happens" and then complaining when they ground me/want me to pay for the damages.


ETA: Back to the topic of the thread...

I just don't see any sane Republicans that would be able to get the nomination, much less enough votes from the independents...
 
Zep said:
Yes, I've heard and read the speech. In my view, that's perhaps assuming facts not in evidence.
Click to expand...
And claiming they are facts in evidence.

As a general, Powell was used to his sources of information at least being honest even if they phrased stuff in certain ways (in my very limited experience, the chain of command in the US military is generally frank with assessments). I would also assume that as Secretary of State, he would not be doing his own intel. So at the time of his speech, I can see that someone has assured him all is good with what he has been given, whereas in fact it was a pile of putrid dingo's kidneys.
Click to expand...
But it wasn't like that. For example, in the speech he claimed the aluminum tubes had to be for nuclear weapons development because they were made to tolerances far in excess of their purported use (rockets), but in fact, he had received a memo (Feb. 3--two days before the speech) from the Bureau of Intelligence and Research saying that they were not.

But anyway! That's another thread, not this one.
Click to expand...
Probably so. Sorry for the derail.

I guess coming back on topic, I would say Powell is like Trump in that he is someone who wouldn't be willing or able to stand up to the kind of scrutiny a presidential candidate would be subject to.
 
BenBurch said:
NRA doesn't like him. That's a big problem.
Click to expand...

Kind of interesting that they don't like the Republican, they loved his Democratic predecessor. But then again, they're not "partisan" so much as "obsessed about a single issue".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom