Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[RebLem]

The days of the liberal Republican -- they did exist! -- were long past even before I came of voting age, and the moderate Republicans disappeared in the last decade or so, so I'd never vote for any Republican.  Obama is a huge disappointment in terms of both policy outcomes and political ability, and I don't expect him to improve in a second term, but the Republicans have gotten so insane that it's important to vote against them whenever possible. 

I assume the general voting public won't go for another Texas governor so soon -- particularly one who even talks just like W -- but the voting public usually finds a way to confound and astonish me.

My assumption is that Romney will be the eventual nominee.  No one likes him, but I think Republican voters will eventually fall into line around the establishment candidate. 

I also think it's a safe assumption that the economy is not going to improve in the next 13 months and that Romney will have a very good chance of winning the general election.  I predict that any winning Republican candidate will not have much if any coattails, though.

I agree completely with your first two paragraphs, Daverz, but Romeny the nominee?  Not a chance.  I predict it will be Perry.  I also predict that Perry is just smart enough--though this is probably the outer limit of his intelligence--to understand that his first priority after accepting the nomination must be to distance himself from the virulent anti-Catholic bigotry of John Hagee.  I predict he will signal this difference by choosing a Northern Catholic as his running mate, and I think the top candidate on his list will be Paul Ryan--ideological diversity is not Perry's thing, and I think Perry has at least a dim awareness of the fact that Santorum is just too far out.

Romney the nominee?  I don't think so.  The recent flap about his California house shows he is just tone deaf.  I think the basic reason he is running is because his wife wants him to, just to get him out of the house so he won't drive her nuts.  Huntsman is the sanest of the bunch, but his campaign is going nowhere.  I predict, though, that he will stay in til the end, because I think he is really running for 2016, and is using this campaign to travel around the country, familiarize himself with different localities and their special problems, and build up a base of supporters, or potential supporters, for whom he is the second choice at the moment.

[RebLem]

And when it comes time to vote, how does one find information about the judges?  I often leave these blank, but if I find an endorsement on the state or local GOP website I can at least cross them off in the voter guide.  But a Dem endorsement is no guarantee the judge isn't some corporate stooge on the make.  Maybe I should call the candidates up and grill them myself.

A good rule of thumb is to vote against all the white Anglo male candidates.  White men who are good lawyers can make lots more money in the private sector than as a legitimate judge.  Ergo, the only reason for one to run for judge is if they are not very good lawyers or if they are crooks.  Operation Greylord in Chicago sent 15 judges to jail, all of them white males.  The only black person caught in the scandal was a bailiff. 

[kishnevi]

A good rule of thumb is to vote against all the white Anglo male candidates.  White men who are good lawyers can make lots more money in the private sector than as a legitimate judge.  Ergo, the only reason for one to run for judge is if they are not very good lawyers or if they are crooks.  Operation Greylord in Chicago sent 15 judges to jail, all of them white males.  The only black person caught in the scandal was a bailiff.

That's not really true.  A lot of attorneys try to get a judgeship because they see it as the next logical step, especially if their background is in criminal law (either prosecutor or defense attorney).  Particularly so if they are politically connected.  And a lot of lawyers find that there are other things besides making money which are important, and get tired of having to deal with clients. The cachet of being a judge is not to be dismissed lightly, either.  The fact that those corrupt Chicago judges were all white males may be due to the nature of Chicago politics.  Alcee Hastings was convicted of bribery, and while he's a male, he's definitely not white.

[RebLem]

That's not really true.  A lot of attorneys try to get a judgeship because they see it as the next logical step, especially if their background is in criminal law (either prosecutor or defense attorney).  Particularly so if they are politically connected.  And a lot of lawyers find that there are other things besides making money which are important, and get tired of having to deal with clients. The cachet of being a judge is not to be dismissed lightly, either.  The fact that those corrupt Chicago judges were all white males may be due to the nature of Chicago politics.  Alcee Hastings was convicted of bribery, and while he's a male, he's definitely not white.

Blacks, Hispanics, and women have the most to gain from being judges.  For many of them, even the very good ones, a judgeship is a step up in terms of income because of rank discrimination in the legal profession and the businesses that retain law firms.  Blacks especially.

Why Blacks especially?  First, because discrimination against them is more intense than for Hispanics and white women. And secondly, as if that weren't enough, black attorneys in private practice get enormous pressure from within their own community to do prodigious amounts of pro bono work, and if one demurs on the ground that one needs some time to earn a living, one is accused of having forgotten where he came from.  A judgeship is an escape from all that, Alcee Hastings notwithstanding.

[kishnevi]

Blacks, Hispanics, and women have the most to gain from being judges.  For many of them, even the very good ones, a judgeship is a step up in terms of income because of rank discrimination in the legal profession and the businesses that retain law firms.  Blacks especially.

Why Blacks especially?  First, because discrimination against them is more intense than for Hispanics and white women. And secondly, as if that weren't enough, black attorneys in private practice get enormous pressure from within their own community to do prodigious amounts of pro bono work, and if one demurs on the ground that one needs some time to earn a living, one is accused of having forgotten where he came from.  A judgeship is an escape from all that, Alcee Hastings notwithstanding.

I can only conclude from this that your knowledge of how the legal profession operates is not very great.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

As for immigration, three points--our immigration quotas are unrealistically low.  The economy needs more immigrants than the quotas will allow to come in  legally. 

You do realize, I hope, that official unemployment in the USA is approx. 10%, and unofficial un- and under-employment is a lot higher than that. How did you conclude that the economy needs more immigrants? Shouldn't we concentrate on putting the people we have to work?

But Republicants don't want to allow much of any immigration anymore unless they are Indians already writing for National Review, because they know most immigrants who become citizens vote Democratic.

Republicans, a lot of them anyway, love immigration, particularly of the illegal kind, because it gives them a dirt-cheap compliant workforce lacking in any legal protections. It also gives them access to highly-skilled legal labor which works for peanuts, via the H1B1 program, among others. I'm betting there are a lot more Indians working for tech companies than writing for National Review.

Thirdly, it is not true that immigration is unchecked.  Obama deported more immigrants per year in his first two years than Bush ever did.  The Border Patrol staffing levels have increased under the Obama Administration despite the fact that there are fewer people attempting to cross our southern border, thanks to the recession.  It just isn't true that immigration is unchecked.  That was much closer to the truth during the Cheney Administration.

This actually contradicts your above statement that Republicans are against immigration.

[Brian]

You do realize, I hope, that official unemployment in the USA is approx. 10%, and unofficial un- and under-employment is a lot higher than that. How did you conclude that the economy needs more immigrants? Shouldn't we concentrate on putting the people we have to work?

But immigrants don't really fill the same jobs as displaced Americans; it's not, for instance, that Mexicans are coming across the border and taking jobs at Ford and Chrysler plants. I don't really think that immigration could be called a cause of job loss, although more and more middle-aged people are taking hourly minimum-wage jobs. Unemployment is worst among teenagers, because the traditional "teenage" jobs (say, store clerk) are being filled by women in their 40s who were let go from administrative or other work.

[Todd]

But immigrants don't really fill the same jobs as displaced Americans

(Shhh, don't tell anyone.  That will reduce the quantity and quality of immigration "debate".)

[karlhenning]

Perry's 2010 Tea Party-steeped manifesto, Fed Up!, makes George Bush look like George McGovern. Perry has said he wasn't planning to run for president when he wrote the book, and it shows . . . .

RTWT here.

[ibanezmonster]

RTWT here.

I predict this guy will be the next president and bring this country to the point of no return, effectively wiping out the middle class.

[Gurn Blanston]

I voted against him at every possible opportunity. Now y'all have your chance. I hope it pays off more than my efforts did. This guy is a freakin' lunatic, and if y'all vote to give him power, you will most likely regret it. 

[karlhenning]

I voted against him at every possible opportunity. Now y'all have your chance. I hope it pays off more than my efforts did. This guy is a freakin' lunatic, and if y'all vote to give him power, you will most likely regret it. 

Democrats' Devil's advocate sez: It'll be a great advantage to Obama, if Perry is the GOP nominee.

[chasmaniac]

This guy is a freakin' lunatic 

Well, that's a theory that's out there...

[Todd]

Democrats' Devil's advocate sez: It'll be a great advantage to Obama, if Perry is the GOP nominee.

I'd agree more if you said Bachmann or Palin.  Perry is, by all accounts, a deft politician and expert campaigner.  He's talking tough and appealing to the right now, but comparatively few people are paying attention.  If it becomes clear he will win the nomination, he will start moving toward the center a bit to appeal to a wider base.  It's rather predictable.  Don't rule him out because he is too conservative or whatever.  Reagan was too conservative to get elected, as well as too old, not too bright, etc.

Personally, I'm thinking it would be best if Obama won, the Republicans at least held the House, and then 2016 would be a wide open field for both parties, just like '08.  Talk about fun.

[karlhenning]

Sound analysis, Todd.

[Herman]

Personally, I'm thinking it would be best if Obama won, the Republicans at least held the House, and then 2016 would be a wide open field for both parties, just like '08.  Talk about fun.

So, that would be how many years lost doing partisan games?

[karlhenning]

There you go, taking the long view for the benefit of the nation. You'd never make a politician, Herman ; )

[Todd]

So, that would be how many years lost doing partisan games?

240 years straight in 2016. 

[karlhenning]

Started with those damnable Whigs, didn't it? . . .

[Todd]

Started with those damnable Whigs, didn't it? . . .

Nah, they operated in the Jacksonian era.  You gotta go back to Hamilton and Jefferson.