Political Hero!!!

This man is my new favorite politician. For those who know me, I want to see if you know why!

Edit: Space saver for this blog!!!

More Republicans Entering the Fray...

As Obama's numbers drop, more Republicans feel the need to capitalize on the lost Hopeychangey promises that the current president lectured Americans on during the campaign and early stages of the Presidency.

The names being thrown around in the article are MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough, General David Petraeus, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Former Senator Rick Santorum, and Tennessee Senator Bob Corker. A list of other Republicans running for 2012 can be found by reading this.

It’s a fool’s errand to appraise whether any of these candidates — or the half-dozen other top-tier GOP possibilities — stand a chance in 2012. And top GOP strategists say they recognize that history gives them little chance of unseating Obama if the economy improves noticeably.

"The independents who were so critical will come back to the Republican Party when they realize, as they're coming to realize, that we're the ones that can be trusted both on the economy and on national security," she [Liz Cheney] said. "So the substance is a lot more important than: Is it this person? Is it that person?"

2012 will be about the economy and national security. I don't think there will be major social issues on the table outside of ethics. But with the economy being as unstable as ever, I think this is where a strong fiscal conservative can gain some major political capital. It also depends on where the media steers us with respect to how candidates view issues.

I will delve into the candidates a little further based on the articles writing and my personal opinion on them.

Scarborough:

As much as anything, it’s an expansive search for more options than there are at present, one that could yield a candidate as unorthodox as Scarborough, the youthful former congressman-turned-cable-TV-personality...

...Scarborough was mentioned as possible candidate for Senate seat in Florida earlier this year but told friends he was much happier hosting a popular television show and making money. Since then, he has emerged as a critic of Obama on government spending and other issues — but one who also prides himself in taking on his own party...

...“Morning Joe,” which reaches just under 500,000 viewers each day, is a strong platform for reaching voters and landing speeches before audiences of people who could vote for him or, more importantly, raise money for a presidential run. It’s also a great practice arena for getting up to speed on issues and testing ideas and lines that might one day resonate with voters.

The show could also hurt him. He has popped off on camera for hundreds of hours, giving any opponent plenty of footage to exploit. And what might make him appealing to a liberal donor in New York — his willingness to reason with opponents and buck his own party — would be appalling to many conservatives...

He is a center-right Republican that reaches into the Conservative spectrum at times--more moderate in a sense. He has good qualities: appeal, a national forum as a TV personality, and will be able to raise money. I don't think he has the ambition to go all the way, but who knows. I like that he will take on his own party, but like the article says, that may hurt him. He is attractive across the spectrum. My take is he needs the money to be a serious contender, and right now, does not have my ears.

Petraeus

"Well, I'd like to see Gen. Petraeus warm up,” Dole said. “I don't know anything about his politics, whether he has an interest. It's kind of a time for another Eisenhower, in my view."

This isn't the first time the popular general's name has been floated as a possible GOP savior — and it won't be the last. Petraeus has political impulses but hasn't revealed if they are conservative ones, and he might not even be a Republican.

The CFR’s Senor is skeptical, even though Petraeus would be an appealing candidate. “He has to be focused like a laser beam on Afghanistan,” Senor said. “If he is as successful in Afghanistan as he was in Iraq, nothing else matters, and he will instantly be considered a top-tier candidate for president.

“But in order to be successful, he has to work very closely and effectively inside this administration, and very loyally to the commander-in-chief. He’s going to work successfully with this administration, and then all of a sudden announce that he’s stepping down to run against the commander in chief under which he served? As a practical matter, that’s unlikely.”

The big thing for Petraeus is recognition. Could people pick him out of a series of pictures and identify him correctly? His campaign would have to seriously market him nationally for him to have a chance in the primaries.

The second issue, goes with the unknown status, is that we do not know his politics. I think that is a good thing partly. He is a military man first and politics should not get in the way of doing the job of directing and helping keep our troops safe. But to be President, you have to exercise some political judgment. This is amplified by the articles questions into whether or not he is even a Republican.

My last issue is--again ties into the rest--how will Petraeus prove to the public that he can deal with issues that are not military in nature. Economics, health care, green policy (lol), and other elevated issues. We don't know yet, but he will have to start going political if he is serious.

The other guys:

Don't care...

I mean they could be good candidates, but I am not sure they are going to turn into front-runners.

The bottom line really is that I am not even 100% sure I like any candidate yet. None of the Republicans can hold a candle to Ron Paul's policy issues and logic. None of them have shown that they aren't damaged either. Palin, not to her fault really though some is, has been tarnished unfairly by the media. Romney has to explain why RomneyCare failed and that will linger. Huckabee, while attractive and pragmatic, has to get rid of the tax-hike Mike moniker.

There is one candidate that I will think can make a splash, but I won't discuss that. A time will come to do so, but I think it is better to drool or to tear down these guys and gals for now.

UPDATE: Michelle Bachmann throws this out there.

Attack the Message, not the Messangers...

It is becoming very clear that Democrats did not take political science classes. They are engaging in a war on messages using the wrong type of ammunition. This is very, very simple. They need to look at how they beat Republicans in the past and see what the message both sides were using.

Democrats control everything: the White House, Congress, and the media. They can easily get out a clear and concise message out without anyone really questioning it. Yet, they decided to make this an issue of how people are protesting and clearly underestimating the effect of this. They think they are still in campaign mode. The issue to the American people is not who is delivering the message--as demonstrated in the past by extreme left-wing groups that Republican attacked instead of addressing the issues. Republicans, for once, attacked the message and the policy, and it is finally getting through their thick heads that this is the way to win over independents. Attacking a group or any citizen usually backfires unless that group or citizen is extremely controversial. Even then, it is hard to get the message across.

Democrats are attacking non-politicians and targeting common people. This is supposedly the post-partisan Obama era. We see ads featuring birthers (irrelevant), Rush Limbaugh (an entertainer who is political), and health care protesters (who can certainly be liberal, independent, and conservative but still dislike the plan). Are these the cards the Democrats want to play after seeing the history of Republicans attempting to do the same while failing? The public will not respond positively to the government attacking the people that vote for them. The public will respond though; it will be in the ballot box.

More on this issue, some I agree with and some I think the author misses the point.

Edit: I forgot to add, the funny part about this, as I am sure people have seen, is that the former community organizer is getting upset about "communities organizing." Even if this was manufactured (95% of the protests are not), it would be the best case of irony.