Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[DanS]

This is not a strong GOP field of candidates. But remember that some candidates transform themselves over the course of an election campaign. Obama managed to defeat a heavyweight (Hillary) when he was a lightweight at the beginning of the campaign.

[giblets]

By whom? Reagan is rightly credited with putting forward a defence policy designed to bring down the Soviet Union. And he succeeded. For that reason alone he is an American hero to whom the world owes its thanks.

Wow, you really are a nutter.

[kentonio]

This is not a strong GOP field of candidates. But remember that some candidates transform themselves over the course of an election campaign. Obama managed to defeat a heavyweight (Hillary) when he was a lightweight at the beginning of the campaign.

That's Huntsmans role, and if the GOP hadn't lost their minds the last few years, he'd already be creeping up through the pack.

[Elok]

It'd be nice if Huntsman could at least be VP. But I doubt even that will happen.

[DinoDoc]

It'd be nice if Huntsman could at least be VP. But I doubt even that will happen.

The entire reason for Huntsman's candidacy existing (moderate governor with an ability to appeal to independents) was stolen by Romney. As such he serves little purpose even as a Veep.

[Dinner]

Huntsman doesn't even serve the purpose of delivering a state either since Utah isn't even close to being a swing state. More likely Romney is going to pick a die hard evangelical with tea bagger appeal since that's the area he needs to shore up his support.

[Elok]

I wouldn't if I were him. They only need Romney for his electability; choosing a VP they actually like is just begging for an assassination two days after inauguration.

[Wezil]

I wouldn't if I were him. They only need Romney for his electability; choosing a VP they actually like is just begging for an assassination two days after inauguration.

* Wezil makes a note for 2013 Dead Pool *

[HalfLotus]

It is amusing to see you all repeat the media's scripted election narratives like clockwork. From ken's frothing at the mouth personal attacks, to Dan's measured "weak field" storyline.

A healthy skeptical assessment would of course wonder why the GOP even needs a "strong "field" with our current president overseeing the worst U.S. economy in a hundred years. I guess people will believe anything if you repeat it often enough.

Mainstream corporate media is a complete joke is many (most?) informed circles, but not here at good ol' Poly. Just regurgitate your favorite flavor with a self-assured nod to your fellow herdmates.

[Dinner]

Obama is going to win too and your boy Paul is going to insure it happens.

On the upside (from your point of view) an independent run by Paul would mean even the GOP elite would be forced to acknowledge they can no longer just ignore and marginalize the Paultards so they'll have to pander to them during the next election cycle.

[giblets]

A healthy skeptical assessment would of course wonder why the GOP even needs a "strong "field" with our current president overseeing the worst U.S. economy in a hundred years. I guess people will believe anything if you repeat it often enough.

Most of the Republican candidates are so bad that Obama can still beat them even with a terrible economy. Though I'm happy to see that you are one of those sheeple who think the "Great" Depression" that happened eighty years ago was worse than the current situation.

[Zevico]

No, he means insanity. As in stark raving, bouncing off the walls ****witted nutjobs. If you cannot see that the positions held by the majority of the primary field are insane, then you can hardly protest if we deem you to be little more than a fanatic. If you think Bachmann and Santorum and Perry are reasonable politicians, then you need to step away from sharp objects immediately and seek help.

Kentonio, my point is simply this: Democrats and Republicans each draw on rich intellectual, political, and social traditions that underlie their beliefs, principles and policies. One need only read some of the foundational texts, or current opinion pieces penned by the advocates of each to understand them. That is as true of Michelle Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum, as it was of Obama, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, etc. Republicans and Democrats have governed your nation for decades and each have contributed to its success at varying times. More to the point, even if the policies of one party or another are inappropriate, wrong and naive that does not make those who believe in it insane. Characterising them as such is an error for a number of reasons:
1) Political views do not reflect mental status or ability.
2) As such calling them insane is an ad hominem that adds nothing to the substance of any political debate. "I disagree with you so much I think you're a madman" is not a reasoned argument.

If you wish to understand what Bachmann et al think and believe I suggest you actually read what they have to say on the issues; look in particular for any sources they cite, or reasons given; research them; and then you will understand them. You may not agree with them all the time but you will recognise, I think, that they are not intellectual lightweights.

Really, the presumption that they are idiots rests on an implicit contempt for a proportion of your countrymen, whom you do not even think to credit for elevating the most intelligent and capable among them to positions of leadership. In other words, what you're saying is that the Republicans don't have any intelligent leaders, supporters or adherents. This strikes me as akin to the argument of a eugenicist.

Ah you think that Reagan and Bush were intelligent men. Ok, you're not helping yourself on that insane issue.

As opposed to "we can be buddies with the Communists, oops they invaded Afghanistan" Carter? Or "I'll be buddies with the Ayatollah, oops turns out he just held my embassy hostage" Carter?
I think Carter was an intelligent man, by the way. Don't take me for suggesting he wasn't. You don't get to be President of the US, a democratic nation of 300 million people, without possessing intelligence. But his views on foreign policy amounted to naive Wilsonianism, a doctrine whose lofty goals have achieved precious little over the years.

Carter did not know how to distinguish enemies and allies, at any rate until they drove home the message that they were enemies by capturing American citizens and invading unaligned nations. Reagan understood that subject far better than Carter did.

I assume you think the Germans should have held off from criticizing that nice Mr Hitler too yes? Wouldn't want them to be thought of as 'unbecoming' after all.

Comparing Republicans to Nazis trivialises the evil of Nazism. It is basically a form of Holocaust denial. Implicitly it suggests that the most evil things the Nazis ever did or intended to do was cut taxes and ban abortion (I'm not aware of them doing either, by the way).

[giblets]

As opposed to "we can be buddies with the Communists, oops they invaded Afghanistan" Carter? Or "I'll be buddies with the Ayatollah, oops turns out he just held my embassy hostage" Carter?

Let me take a guess- you don't have any actual evidence that Carter ever thought Communists or the Ayatollah were his buddies.

[Zevico]

Carter-
1) Supported the Iranian revolution against the Shah. The revolutionaries subsequently took the US Embassy hostage.
2) Bewailed the US' "inordinate fear of Communism" and, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, opined that--

This action of the Soviets has made a more dramatic change in my own opinion of what the Soviets’ ultimate goals are than anything they’ve done in the previous time I’ve been in office

The "Soviets goals" were obvious long before Carter came along. This naivete is breathtaking.

In case you weren't aware, these are two of the major reasons Carter lost against Reagan.

[giblets]

Carter supported a revolution against the Shah? That's a new one

Oh, and you tried to switch from "Carter thought the Communists could be his buddies" to "Carter didn't realize the Communists were plotting world conquest". Yeah, nice try