The State of the 2012 Race

Not a big surprise, but Paul Ryan will not be running for president in 2012.

It is looking more and more like it will be a contest between Romney, Perry, and Bachmann to remove Obama from the White House. 

In other words, our choices are:

(A) An imperfect but  incredibly bright “fairly conservative” former governor with gobs of private-sector experience.

(B) A cowboy who, when he is not mandating STD vaccines for 11 year old girls, can be found flippantly accusing his political adversaries of treason in a manner that makes George W. Bush sound like a Long Island liberal.

or (C) A respectable woman who I actually admire but who is probably too far to the right of center to win in a general election.  One poll just out today shows that she lags 6 points behind Romney in a head to head matchup vs. Obama. 

It’s your call America.  Choose wisely.

As for me…. I’ll take Romney-Rubio 2012 for the win.

Comments

  1. Randy in Richmond says:

    I would like Christie to run but of the announced, I could go for Romney/Bachmann or Romney/Giuliani. Whoever wins should appoint Palin Secretary of the Interior.

  2. I’m still very undecided, but Bachmann’s campaign just added me to her press list, so I like her a whole lot better than I did yesterday!

  3. Just curious why it seems you are against mandating a vaccine that prevents cancer? Its cheap, preventative medicine that will prevent a debilitating disease and expensive care later on in life.

  4. Ryan Morgan says:

    Yep, Christie is the one who could enter that would change everything.

    That’s exciting that Bachmann added you to her presslist! Many try to paint her as being Palin’s clone, but personally, I think MB is much more impressive of a public figure.

    As for the vaccine, I think parents ought to be able to make their own decisions in regards to if their daughters ought to receive it or not… forcing it upon them is anti-freedom and anti-personal responsibility. And there are 2 other issues: 1) Perry’s main motivation appears to have been taking care of his buddies at Merck… crony capitalism at its worst 2) Perry ordered the vaccine just months after it came out. The medical community was largely against the move on the grounds that further analysis was needed before a stade-wide mandate would be justified.

  5. Randy in Richmond says:

    Ryan is right. It is not the government’s charge to push untested vaccines on it’s citizens, especially children. There was some opt out clause but that is always tricky. In the end state lawmakers forced Perry’s hand, passing a law overturning his decision with veto-proof majorities in both chambers.

  6. The Lorax says:

    Vaccine mandates have nothing to do with being anti-anything, other than being anti-disease.

    That said, Perry was definitely helping out his buddies and that was wrong. I just spent a season coaching the high school debate topic on vaccines. Very interesting research. The best bet is to create a mandate with an opt-out for moral objectors. Kind of like in the military.

    I really understand the privacy/rights protests that are brought up, but where’s the bright line? Should parents have the right to not clothe their children? To not provide schooling? To not feed them properly?

    I think, for most, the status quo is the bright line–and the protests of it being immoral to force vaccines is just a proxy of change aversion. But maybe one of you has an operable framework? I’m really interested.

  7. Oh, and I forgot, reason #3 why Perry was wrong… if he wanted to pass it, he should have done it legitimately through the Texas legislature, not through an executive order.

    Lorax: I think if we are talking about measles and mumps, I largely agree with you. But isn’t there a difference between vaccinating for diseases that can be contracted by the guy sitting behind you on the bus sneezing vs. ones that are entirely avoidable so long as you are not promiscuous?

    It is similar to what I’d say about the individual mandate in health insurance…. in order to achieve the socially desirable goal of me not free-riding health care costs from other tax-payers, if I want to self-fund and pay my health care costs out of pocket rather than buy a health insurance policy, I should have the right to do that. Similarly, if my daughter wants to achieve the socially desirable goal of not contracting/spreading HPV by not spreading her legs, more power to her.

  8. The Lorax says:

    I do think the HPV vaccine mandate goes too far.

  9. NOTA would be my first choice between those 3 and Obama, but I’d reluctantly back Romney over Obama. Perry and Bachmann are too religious for me, so it would be an extremely tough decision if SCOTUS doesn’t throw out the entire health care bill. While Romney may have written the first draft of Obamacare, he seems to have “gotten religion” about it (pun somewhat intended), and is centrist enough to get elected. My concern about Bachmann and Perry is that they would be just as bad as Obama, but on personal matters rather than economic matters.

    I wouldn’t rule out Chris Christie or Paul Ryan being tapped as the VP nominee. Marco Rubio is another logical choice.

  10. Questions for KPOM:

    1) How does the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare affect your decision? If they find the whole thing unconstitutional, would that make you more or less likely to vote for Perry/Bachmann? Why?

    2) What negative consequences do you foresee from a president that is “too religious”? What “personal matters” issues would they pass laws on that would be analogous to Obamacare or other transformative legislation that Obama has passed? Here’s a hint…. if you are worried that blue laws are coming back under President Bachmann, I’d gently suggest that you ought not lose much sleep over that.

    3) From which mainstream media outlet did you get the idea that Romney drafted Obamacare? Massachusetts Health Care reform had an individual mandate and created purchasing exchanges. But it did not expand some parts of Medicare. Or defund others. Or introduce a litany of new taxes on everyone from medical device companies to tanning salons. Or do most/all of the thousands of those new things that Obamacare requires. So in other words, Romney’s bill certainly has a couple parallels with Obamacare, but to imply they are one and the same strikes me as rather misinformed.

  11. 1) If the whole bill is thrown out, then I’d be less uncomfortable with a 2nd Obama term, provided that there is GOP control of at least one house of Congress to prevent it from being resurrected. That’s not to say I’d be comfortable with a 2nd Obama term, because the long-term economic issues would be unresolved for another 4 years. I live in a solidly blue state and so I’m less concerned about my actual vote. But I’d be anything but enthusiastic about Bachmann or Perry.

    2) We had 8 years of a president that was openly religious, made a big deal about it, and publicly appealed to religion when making political decisions. It got us Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. It also clouded his judgment in executing two wars (for the record, I think both wars were justifiable, but poorly executed). Reagan was personally religious, but didn’t make a big deal about it and considered it a personal matter. I couldn’t tell you if George HW Bush ever went to church. Both of them were OK presidents. My concern is that Bachmann and Perry would waste too much time on stupid distractions like DOMA or trying to get PBS or arts funding cut off (i.e. issues that aren’t of particularly great importance over the next few years).

    3) Fox. 🙂 Anyway, my point isn’t that Romney drafted the actual Obamacare, but that he drafted something that had an individual mandate and requires insurers to provide anyone coverage. Philosophically, it’s the ancestor of Obamacare. Thus he is weaker on the healthcare issue than others. However, he has partially redeemed himself since he said he’d use executive fiat (waivers) to mitigate some of the bad things that Obama has done through executive fiat.

  12. The Lorax says:
  13. I understand wanting a more reliable conservative than TT, but until 1) Thompson actually gets in the race AND 2) There is a credible primary challenger who would potentially be strong enough to win a general election, Club for Growth is really misguided in attacking Thompson.

    The most likely scenario at this point in time is Tammy vs. Tommy. At that point, I’m pretty sure the Club for Growth might conclude that Tommy doesn’t look so bad after all.

  14. I was just thinking about this. I think it will be Tammy vs. Ted and she walks away with it. Tommy will cave and everyone is mad at Neumann.

  15. Wow, you sure have changed your tune. Last week Wisconsin was a red state. This week we are going to elect Tammy Baldwin (lifetime ACU conservatism score 1.75/100) to the Senate.

    When you say Tommy will cave, I assume that means decide not to run rather than lose the primary, correct?

  16. Oh, Wisconsin is a Red State, just enough red to become complacent and elect one Blue senator. And yes, I think Tommy is afraid to lose, but his ego demands he still get the press and think about running.

    Plus, Obama will be on the ticket and the Dems don’t want to lose the Senate to Republicans, so there will be boatloads of Dem money in that race.

  17. The Lorax says:

    It would be kinda cool to have a woman elected senator in Wisconsin, though.

  18. Would you say the same if that new Senator was Mrs. Kleefisch? 🙂

  19. Honestly, that’s a great idea Ryan.

  20. Rebecca vs. Tommy would sure be one interesting primary…

  21. Dinna fash yerself. It’s early.