Please find one person who is rubbed the wrong way by Booker besides Sharpe James. I have yet to meet them
Here we go, this is what I was talking about: he defended Bain Capital at a time when the Obama campaign was trying to use Bain to attack Romney: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/cory-booker-obama-romney-bain-ad.php
Doesn't my statement indicate that I am rubbed the wrong way? Yes, but there is such a thing as overexposure. I wouldn't have an issue with Booker being my Senator (I'm from Jersey). I just worry that as a Presidential candidate he'll come across as a glory hound.
You threw in enough qualifiers to be confusing as to what you felt. Anyway, you are the first I have ever met.
I thought the dog rescue event was a little over the top. I like Booker, but get the sense he could use a bit more experience. I disagree that he'd be wasting his time in the Senate. He'd be gaining valuable experience in how the federal government works, padding his political resume. Seems like time well spent for someone who may have White House aspirations.
Biden will be too old--only he thinks he's got a chance to win. Schweitzer will be very difficult, being from Montana. You don't get elected to State-wide office in Montana as a dem unless you're moderate (or if only people in Missoula, Butte, and Bozeman show up to vote that day) and he would be too moderate to appeal to the national base without a drastic reinventing of himself. Besides, it's such a small (but absolutely great) state, that opponents will do with him what they did with Palin--how does being governor of a small state like that qualify you. If we were going to have a Montana pol on the national ticket, it would have been Marc Racicot, who was governor while I was in high school/college. Had an insane approval rating and had one political defeat in 8 years. There was some speculation GWB was going to pick him as VP, and they're very good friends--would have made as much sense in most ways as Cheney did.
I'd personally love to see Sherrod Brown. He's to the left of mainstream Ohio and yet he managed to get elected comfortably. He has a way of selling liberalism to working class whites.
Former President Jimmy Carter considers 2016 run. http://tinyurl.com/a7chlw8 Atlanta, Georgia USA -- Sources close to Jimmy Carter (D) have suggested that the former president is considering throwing his hat into the ring for the 2016 presidential election. "Former president Carter hasn't officially made a decision, but he may considering looking into possibly running for president in 2016," said an anonymous source. As a note to our international reader, it is an American custom to begin speculation on the next presidential election as soon previous one has ended. Presidential candidates traditionally hint at a desire to run for office before officially announcing their candidacy. Carter, age 88, was president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, and also served as governor of Georgia. "Carter's age may be an issue," said one pundit, "However, the candidates being considered are also up in years. Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton will be 69, the same as Ronald Reagan, in 2016. Vice President Joe Bidenwill be even older at 74, two years older than McCain was in 2008. Biden is actually closer to Jimmy Carter's than he is to Barack Obama's age, to put things in perspective." "Carter, although he is up in years, would have many good qualities as a presidential candidate," he continued. "Compared to Biden, Carter is less of a Washington insider. Biden was in Senate from 1973, 4 years before Carter was elected president, until his election as vice president in 2009. Hillary Clinton, the other notable potential Democratic candidate at the moment, has been a bogeyman, if not THE bogeyman, of the right-wing for two decades now. Carter was able to appeal to southern white voters and Christians, while also appealing to anti-war activists and anti-war haters. He might even be able to run as an anti-Obama candidate. In the 1980 election, he ran against Reagan's irresponsible deficit spending, and would be the perfect Democratic insurgent against Obama's frighteningly irresponsible deficit spending."
Time to resurrect this thread a bit. I don't care about the Democratic Primaries one iota, largely because the only Democrats I'd be willing to support in the primaries would be Joe Biden and Julian Castro, and neither of them will beat Hillary if she runs so the whole issue is a non-starter. I want to talk about the Republican Presidential Primaries, because I think we're shaping up to have one heck of an entertaining race. From my not-so-lofty perch, here are the main candidates: Marco Rubio (or Suzanna Martinez) - Conservative Charismatics Chris Christie (or Jeb Bush) - Establishment Moderates Rand Paul - Libertarians Bill Haslam, Bobby Jindal, Mitch Daniels, Jon Bruning, Rick Perry, Mike Rounds, etc - Pragmatic/Irrelevant Conservatives Each of these people represents less a name than a group/faction in the GOP that we've all come to know and love. Moreover, these groups of people have gotten to know each other pretty well too, and the conclusion they've reached is that they all hate each other. And I mean viscerally. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul can barely stand in the same room for fifteen minutes. Marco Rubio and Chris Christie probably have very little in common with each other for a wide variety of reasons. And thanks to the Batshit Insane 2012 Presidential Primaries, we now have some pretty useful data to analyze how 2016 might play out: 1) The Conservative Charismatics are your Rick Santorums, Newt Gingriches, Herman Cains. They were out in force in 2012 thanks to the Tea Party. Very socially conservative, somewhat fiscally liberal, these groups are the Limbaugh listeners, FOX watchers, Internet-arguers. In 2012, they cobbled together about 30% of the early-state GOP primary base. Their strengths are the South, the Plains, and some of the Mountain West (although Mitt Romney's LDS base in those states probably affects our ability to examine that region as well as others). 2) Establishment Moderates - I highlight Chris Christie but really, it's Karl Rove. Whomever Rove chooses in 2016 will be rolling in the money, the guarantee of winning Pennsylvania to Maine, and maybe the Left Coast. That's about it. Like Mitt Romney before the has-beens dropped out, the Establishment Moderate can only count on about 20-25% of the GOP primary base and won't win Iowa, Nevada, or South Carolina easily. 3) Rand Paul/Libertarian - this group is guaranteed between 10-15% of the primary vote, and possibly more if Rand's religious bona fides strike a chord with some of the Deep South (where his dad didn't do so hot). If the GOP switches over to a proportional system, the Libertarians will be able to extract heavy losses if not be the kingmaker. 4) The Pragmatic/Irrelevant Conservatives - Everyone else. Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitch Daniels, Bill Haslam...these are all conservatives with legislative accomplishments but no national aura to draw hordes of primary-goers to them. In Iowa, these guys got about 10% of the vote and will eventually end up endorsing either the Charismatic or Establishment guy. Who is going to win? I don't know. Christie's name is dead south of the Mason-Dixon line. Jeb Bush's name is dead anywhere where GOP voters remember his brother. Rand Paul is dead anywhere they don't have tinfoil hats, and Marco Rubio's name is dead anywhere near Karl Rove's defeat-the-Tea-Party machinery. What I can say is we should all begin looking forward to the debates in two years. Gonna be fun!
Don't get pushy. Actually Director GRIMES admires pushiness but, as he notes you list Florida as your location, there's too many Floridians ahead of you. "You'll get yours" is of but one of his favorite utterances. Oops...HAIL GRIMES!