I agree!
not a weak field.
we have several that would thump obama.
I only hear this talk from MSM and purists.

During the last several cycles, there was no one that was as compelling as this cycle. This time, there are 3 or 4 names (possibly more coming) that are actually interesting. Dynamic speakers and true conservatives.

I have my favorite, but even if they don’t make it, there are many others I would support.

I think much of the “this is a weak field” cries come from the lack of name recognition of many of the candidates. And of those who are known, there’s isn’t much enthusiasm.

Conservatism is rising, and will continue to do so, and most of us want a candidate who inspires us. We really haven’t had one since Reagan. W. wasn’t really one..and his term is defined most of all by 9/11, Iraq, and the War on Terror. We WANT to be inspired, to have our socks knowcked off, lour toes curled ( politically speaking, of course) The one who came closest to doing so is Palin. We still have to get our minds around the fact that this is the field..

Conservatism is rising, and will continue to do so, and most of us want a candidate who inspires us. We really haven’t had one since Reagan. W. wasn’t really one..and his term is defined most of all by 9/11, Iraq, and the War on Terror. We WANT to be inspired, to have our socks knowcked off, lour toes curled ( politically speaking, of course) The one who came closest to doing so is Palin. We still have to get our minds around the fact that this is the field..

There’s just this one girlie-man, sitting starkly alone on their bench… who’s ballooned the federal debt by some 6 trillion dollars… who’s strangling domestic energy supplies… who is driving up the cost of healthcare, food, and clothes with amateur-hour Marxism… who has destroyed American strength, power and respect around the globe… who says the most outrageous, insulting, cold-hearted things when off-the-prompter… who’s presidential approval index continues to hover around -14… and who has taken great apparent joy in relegating some 10 million Americans to the permanent unemployment roles.

Barack Obama will be out of the White House by 8:30 PM on election day. He’s detested by vast swaths of the (very animated) voting public. Alfred E. Newman could beat him in a walk.

…and, in the Grand Tradition of the Republican Party, we will likely NOMINATE Alfred E. Newman.

and Reagan of 1976 and 1980 is a good example … can be very outside the establishment .. but can’t be outsider to the point of exclusion.

Mew

And a “typical” field won’t beat Mr. Obama.

I know that’s not a popular point-of-view and many folks believe Mr Ed can win (posthumously). Not me.

That’s also not to say there isn’t a “diamond in the rough” yet to be found. There is a lifetime between now and the election. But as of right now there seems to be a lot of carbon out there.

Every candidate has his warts. And I have no problem vigorously vetting the merits of each candidates proposals and their core principles in the primary. Remember I said proposals and core-principles- that doesn’t mean we eat our young and damage candidates beyond repair.

But instead of holding both nostrils like the last election, I would at least like to breath through one side of my nose this time.

The meme seems to be coming from two groups: those that like Obama and are interested in insulating him, and second those that don’t like the present presumed front-runner: Romney.

Thank you for attacking this baseless meme of a “weak field”.

and say that it’s a “weak field” if your goal is a solid conservative winning back the White House for the GOP

I have to be more realistic than one poster here who said of the group running, “we have several that would thump Obama”. A check of his approval ratings (since Bin Ladens killing) and his stated goal of raising 1 BILLION dollars for his 2012 re-election (combined with the inherent advantages of the incumbency) tells me that NO ONE is going to “thump” Obama. Winning by 1 electoral vote is all that is needed and most likely may be all that is achievable in a best case scenario. That would also explain why so many “big names” did not run. They like their odds a lot better in 2016.

More and more it shapes up that 2012 (for the GOP) is going to look a lot like 2008 .Primary voters must decide “Do we want our best chance to win (Romney-Pawlenty) or go down fighting on principles (Bachmann-Palin).

Good analysis.

I knew the GOP was in trouble in 2008, but Obama, Hillary, and John Edwards were about the only three Democrats that could have blown that election. And despite the unpopularity of Bush at the time, McCain/Palin would have won that election had it been about 8 weeks earlier. Once Lehman Brothers fell and people saw there 401 (k) get cut in half, it was over and didn’t matter how bad the Democrat nominee was, America wanted a change.

I tend to think 2012 will shake out in a similar way, the nation will just decide it needs to go in a different direction, no matter who the Republican nominee is (within reason) I certainly don’t think Obama is some invincible candidate, I have zero doubt in a “normal’ election environment, the American people would never back such a leftist candidate. Obama needed the luxury of a crisis and a scapegoat. Nowthe shoe is on the other foot, and he gets to be both.

As they are most completely libratards (and Obamaites), (even Fox as they are somewhat balanced), our reaction should be the exact opposite. We need a stealth candidate that appears at the close with overwhelming momentum, moves too quick for the MSM to get into full attack mode (think 10x the Palin attacks), and puts the BHO back in Chicago unemployment lines.

Many of the 2012 candidates have not run for President before and are not that well known beyond their respective home states. But not being a household word is not unusual this early. In May 1975 few people outside of Georgia had heard of Carter, and in May 2007 relatively few people outside of Illinois knew of Obama.

This year being new is, I think, an advantage. The Washington insiders created the mess, and so being a Washington insider this year is a disadvantage (at least for somebody who wants the Republican nomination). Romney, Huntsman, and Newt are all contaminated by their insider status, Newt is even, ludicrously, denying that he is a Washington figure!

Many of the 2012 candidates have not run for President before and are not that well known beyond their respective home states. But not being a household word is not unusual this early. In May 1975 few people outside of Georgia had heard of Carter, and in May 2007 relatively few people outside of Illinois knew of Obama.

This year being new is, I think, an advantage. The Washington insiders created the mess, and so being a Washington insider this year is a disadvantage (at least for somebody who wants the Republican nomination). Romney, Huntsman, and Newt are all contaminated by their insider status, Newt is even, ludicrously, denying that he is a Washington figure!

on that list. Can you imagine how much better we would be if say:

Reagan had won in 1968

Pete DuPont had won in 1988

B-1 Bob Dornan had won in 1996

well, 2000 was a wash

Or almost anyone besides “Mr. Excitement” in 2008.

*sigh*

on that list. Can you imagine how much better we would be if say:

Reagan had won in 1968

Pete DuPont had won in 1988

B-1 Bob Dornan had won in 1996

well, 2000 was a wash

Or almost anyone besides “Mr. Excitement” in 2008.

*sigh*

how did that happen, prithee?

how did that happen, prithee?

The conservatives won the “battle of ideas” but not so much on the GOP battlefield. In the ’68 – ’80, something else significant happened: the “McGovern Reforms” in the Democratic Party gave dramatically more emphasis to primaries and less to state caucuses and conventions, transferring power from the party establishment to the activists. Republicans followed suit blindly, afraid to be labelled “undemocratic” for their traditional selection process.

The GOP grassroots were always conservative after WWII, the liberals and moderates were still in charge of the party establishment. Rockefeller was East Coast Establishment Liberal Republican, but was hugely influential. But the Democrats’ changes made their own party more liberal, but snatched power from liberal Republicans at the same time.

In passing, I also note that many of the “candidates” listed for 1964 and 1968 weren’t actual candidates, but instead “favorite son” candidates who ran in their own states to keep the delegates uncommitted until the conventions. This was a common practice in both parties until the proliferation of primaries with proportional allocations of delegates made it obsolete.

We have a nation awakened to the stink of Marxism and it is more clearly defined now than at anytime in our nations history. What we need is some clear leadership to rally all the independents to the free market economy. It might be the Tea Party candidates who are most able to do this. We know without question that many are now well aware just what “spread the wealth around” means in Chicago politics and it should be quite easy to push this in the Presidential campaign. BUT we need fighters not another McNice candidate and if they haven’t got the guts to stand up to the socialists and call it like it is, then they shouldn’t even be considered.

We have a nation awakened to the stink of Marxism and it is more clearly defined now than at anytime in our nations history. What we need is some clear leadership to rally all the independents to the free market economy. It might be the Tea Party candidates who are most able to do this. We know without question that many are now well aware just what “spread the wealth around” means in Chicago politics and it should be quite easy to push this in the Presidential campaign. BUT we need fighters not another McNice candidate and if they haven’t got the guts to stand up to the socialists and call it like it is, then they shouldn’t even be considered.

Every single time prior to this, there has been a sitting US Senator in the list. (Dole or McCain for most of them) Is there *any* current US Senator who has expressed even *mild* interest in running for the Republican nomination in 2012?

I think that is the problem, too typical.

The type of conservative most of us would like cannot be elected anymore in my opinion. I’m really not trying to be Negative Nancy, but there is a constituency for the Dems that will NEVER be swayed. And that constituency has grown. And continues to grow. That constituency is the dependent. Like the story of the man who trapped the hogs with persuasion and patience… the dependent are now in the pen.

They do not think for themselves, they do not adhere to reason. The MSM feed them and keep them dependent. The govt obliges. Any election now is a popularity contest. Standing on phone books to “look” taller. Busing in folks to artificially increase the crowds. Taking words out of context. The MSM articulating the message. I wish everyone watched FOX, but FOX isn’t a panacea. And the MSM has successfully branded FOX as partisan. Obviously we know that “truth” is not partisan, but to the dependent, and thru the free media (NBC, ABC, CBS) they have been largely successful in creating this image.

A TRUE conservative will be masaccred with their own words, twisted and repeated over and over until it is accepted in the way the MSM wants it to be… a TRUE conservative will be branded as racist, or out of touch… THEREFORE the only candidates that will get past this manipulation of message, will be those that feign supposed “middle” ground… or those that actually endorse so called “moderate” values. a.k.a Bush Sr… Bush Jr… McCain… all weak conservatives… we can pick and choose certain conservative actions by each… but by and large, they were not as conservative as most of us. They either were to the middle or played to the middle, neither good for the conservative movement.

We need someone who can RELATE to the American Conservative… who can speak to people in plain terms, and articulate the conservative message… I mean Arlen Specter in ’96?!?! If that’s typical, I DON’T WANT IT!!

I remember in the last election, it seemed like NO ONE could give a decent speech, because NO ONE believed in the Conservative message after Bush was chastised his last few years… None of them believed what they were saying… And look what happened!

We need NON-TYPICAL… we need someone who can speak OVER the media… that was the attraction to Trump… he says what he means, he says it in a way everyone understands, and he has the success that people can’t ignore… I am not a Trump supporter, but we need those qualities in our next candidate… maybe Caine… but don’t tell me that typical is good… it lost us an election and we can’t afford that again…

process since 1954. Every time at the beginning of the season it is the Same. Everyone is wondering where is the real candidate, or this field seems pretty weak etc. This season is no different with one exception. This seems to be the strongest season I have seen in many years. There are in my opinion a few strong contenders right now. Like Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty and Michelle Bachman. There also seems be be a couple of sleepers that might just pop out at the last minute. In 2008 everyone had writen john McCain off (I wish they had but), he came back to take the nomination. Watch out for Rick Santorum, or maybe even Newt Gingrich even though he started by shooting himself in the foot and then stuck in his mouth. I am really wanting to see a Pawlenty/Cain ticket. I believe it would be strong and would kill the Democrats Ace in the hole, The Race card.

i.e. we had big expectations for this year, it is a weak field.

Is the field weaker than in 2008? No.

Weaker than 2000? Not if you go three deep.

Weaker than 1996? Nope.

Weaker than 1992? As politicians? Probably yes.

So no, the field is probably stronger than the historical average if you go three people deep—-but we are coming off of the Tea Party movement, and in that light, the field is extremely weak.

“I doubt any of them can beat Barack Obama unless the economy gets worse, and I don’t want to be in a position of rooting for a bad economy,” he said.

Not sure what the message here is.