T Nation

Who Is on the Horizon for the GOP?


I just thought that this may make for some nice discussion.

Who are possible Presidential Candidates for the GOP in 2012.

The "shining stars" seem to be dropping like flies (mainly from "thinking with the wrong head" as the saying goes).


Palin steered me into wrongly "predicting" the Presidential Race; but there is "something" telling me she will be in the race, at least initially. I just don't think she will go far, because she'll probably be "eaten up by her own" in the Primaries. (Much like she was in Alaska).


I just can't see the GOP thinking that he is the "new face of the party". Nor do I see the GOP thinking that he could beat, what would by 2012, be a VERY "seasoned" President...both with running a campaign and with being President. The "experience" leverage against Obama at that point would be lost.


Soon to be confirmed Ambassador to China. Knows how to navigate political "mindfields". (Hell...he got a change in Utah Liquour Laws...)

He is a man of character with leadership qualities. Would be a good choice, but I hope that he won't waste his time or money.

He is Mormon. That's enough for the Religious Right of the Party.

Any "darkhorses" out there, guys? (There always is).

Any people to begin looking at?



I don't think Palin is the answer.

Huntsman is interesting from the little I know - but I don't know much about him.

I think Romney has a good chance - and his economic bona fides might give him a big advantage come 2012. I was never a huge fan, but I see his position being strong.

Jindal is a great and brilliant technocrat - but I don't see him as presidential timber.

The GOP needs someone who stands up like a statesman and knows how to prioritize national issues. One big mistake - I think - is that the GOP has insisted on playing the game of fighting the culture wars on the national level. It is a strategic mistake - these kinds of issues were never appropriare for the federal government to be involved in.

The GOP needs the prototypical "Daddy" candidate - solid on national defense, a fiscal "house cleaner" with a no-nonsense reputation for balancing budgets and demanding accountability, and someone who will take on Congress' excesses with a veto pen.

But...someone who appeals to independents. Doesn't have to win all of them, but must have enough "common sense" charisma to appeal to individuals who don't strictly adhere to party lines.


That's impressive!


Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are in the mix, I kinda wish Rudy Giuliani would run again. I had high hopes for him but I didn't get the feeling like he was hungry for it.


I forgot Huckabee.

Very polarizing. Definitely appeals to the Far Right.

How do you guys think he would do with Independents?

Romney will run into the same problem eventually as Huntsman...he's Mormon.




Are you suggesting another Reagan?

Is there anyone out there?



I keep seeing Pawlenty's name being thrown around. As for what I think... I still like Duncan Hunter.


From what little I know of him, I also like Duncan Hunter, but why would he do better this time around? He was not able to pull even 1% last time.


Jesus Christ, how fucking depressing.

Palin - puke
Huckabee - puke
Pawlenty - puke
Romney - gag
Jindal - gag


I loathe Obama and the Democrats, but even I've been groaning at the names the GOP have been throwing out there. If they can't find somebody a lot better, and fast, they may as well not even bother in 2012.


I'm not as familiar with him, but am learning.

There is a father and a Son. Which are we talking about?



Hunter Sr. At least that's who I am referring to.


Giuliani can eat a fat DICK


Also referring to Sr.



With the simmering discontent brewing out there; the stronger "play" for the GOP may be in concentrating on Mid-Term/Congressional Races. These races can often be MUCH more important than the Presidential one, especially now, since the majority held by the DEMS in both Houses is very small and fragile.

You can BET that voting for or against the Stimulus Package will be a part of many campaigns, especially if the economy continues to tank.

With that being said: THE GOP WILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT POLICY. Simply playing "Chicken Little" won't work.



Hi Mufasa,

I am a registered republican and I will be casting my ballot for Ron Paul if he chooses to run again.

With little variation, all of the candidates you've mentioned are NOT very conservative. They claim to be fiscal conservatives but (with no exception I've seen in voting records) they support the war effort, nation building, patriot act, increased power to the Fed, etc.

Dr. Paul is one of the few republican candidates I'm aware of that is nationally known, AND still stands for any semblance of what the party is supposed to mean (limited government, less spending, etc.) It is a shame that he cannot garner much support in this ONE PARTY system we have nowadays :slight_smile:



As personal opinion, the fundamental problem with GOP candidates is that the vast bulk of them have bought into the Bush philosophy -- regardless of being proven wrong -- that all one has to do is spend like a Democrat, promise enhanced government benefits like a Democrat, promise amnesty to illegals like a Democrat, and so forth, and this will win Democrat voters.

Uh, no it won't.

Bush blew up the Federal budget like no one ever did until Obama, and what was he endlessly accused of by the media and Democrats, and believed by Democrat voters to be guilty of? Cuts!

(On the bizarre but media-approved definition that an increase, regardless of being a large increase, that is less increase than previously planned is a "cut.")

And as for the idea that Hispanic citizens, here legitimately, honestly, and legally will switch to Republican, when not already Republican, if Republicans put through amnesty, that is not so either.

But nonetheless your typical GOP candidate is dedicated to the idea of Big Government much moreso than say Jack Kennedy ever was. Heck, LBJ was a piker compared to them.

So they don't win Democrat votes by trying to be Democrat-lite in these regards, and they don't bring out the conservative votes either. They also don't manage to do so well with libertarian voters.

Personal analysis.

And I agree, Mufasa, they also fail by not presenting, generally speaking, their own plan.


Now, here's MY plan, which would never be found acceptable by Washington:

Legislation would be enacted which would automatically twilight (bring to an end) all legislation previously passed, newest legislation being twilighted soonest and oldest legislation later. Specifically, the end date would be as many days after enactment as had passed between original passage and this new bill being passed.

I'm sure that could have been written better.

What I mean is, for example a law that had been passed only 1 year ago, would go out of effect 1 year after this new bill was passed. A law passed 5 years ago would go out of effect 5 years from this bill being passed, and so forth.

If Congress wanted to retain a given law, it would have to specifically re-pass it.

This would apply to regulations also. Again, if regulation is specifically considered to be needed as its twilight date approaches, it could be redone anew. But it would take the specific effort.

Furthermore it would apply to budgets, though with correction for inflation and increase in population.

We had enough laws and regulation for example 10 years ago. (With a few exceptions likely the case.)

The size of the government 10 years ago was surely enough, if corrected for inflation and size of population.

Wouldn't it be great if government size 5 years from now rolled back to where it was 5 years ago; 10 years from now to where it was 10 years ago; and 25 years from now to where it was 25 years ago? Were we really desperately short of "enough" government at those past times? Of course not.

Myself, I would like that.


I see where you're coming from, R4G!

I've always liked the candidates like Perot and Paul. They often interject vitality and a no-nonsense approach to our problems.

However, the problem is that they will often get tripped-up in two ways:

1) It's one thing to point out what the problems are. It's quite another to point out exactly how to implement the cure. AND

2) They will often be "strong" on issues like spending; the budget; etc...but begin to waver on social issues.

One thought is for the GOP to take the basic principals that Dr. Paul advocates, and put them into some workable platform?

I think that its doubtful that would happen.



I think someone like a Ron Paul also needs more face time on the TV. I mean, in '08 you heard plenty about Obama, MCain, Palin, Biden, but not much attention was given to Ron Paul.