Potential GOP Presidential Candidates - Approve or Disapprove?

[RosettaStoned]

Huckabee - Approve
Palin - Disapprove
Romney - Disapprove
Gingrich - Disapprove
Pawlenty - Approve
Santorum - Approve
Huntsman - Approve
Barbour - Disapprove
Bachmann - Disapprove
Bolton - Approve
Daniels - Approve
Giuliani - Disapprove
Johnson - Disapprove
Paul - Disapprove
Roemer - Disapprove
Thune - Approve
Trump - Approve
Cain - Disapprove

[nhmagic]

Looks like Daniels is the most widely acceptable candidate to the reps/libertarians on the board - one note, if he does get the nomination, he will need to pick someone exciting from the heart of the base.  It's not fair that we've had so many establishment/liberal republican picks since Reagan.  The person who does win the nod - well, lets just say that the pressure will be so intense for that person to win because of what will happen if Obamacare is fully implemented.  If they lose, I will never ever respect any of the moderate republicans, establishment figures or friends who have said that certain individuals were the most "electable" again.  This election isn't something to be thrown away, God forbid.  I've got no doubt about the stakes.  It doesn't matter who the republican is - even if I disapprove of that person, I will willingly vote for the person with an R after their name.  Everyone needs to sit back and consider that for a second because these are different times than prior elections and it's our families' lives on the line with this one. 

[Tender Branson]

Huckabee - Disapprove
Palin - Disapprove
Romney - Neutral
Gingrich - Disapprove
Pawlenty - Neutral
Santorum - Disapprove
Huntsman - Neutral
Barbour - Disapprove
Bachmann - Disapprove
Bolton - Disapprove
Daniels - Neutral
Giuliani - Neutral
Johnson - Neutral
Paul - Neutral
Roemer - Disapprove
Thune - Disapprove
Trump - Disapprove
Cain - Disapprove

[Brittain33]

Disapprove of all except for Huntsman, who I'll probably disapprove of once he starts running for the nomination.

Why pretend?

[Niemeyerite]

let me do this (I'm not a republican):


Huckabee - Lean Disapprove
Palin - Deeply Disapprove
Romney - Disapprove
Gingrich - Disapprove
Pawlenty - Lean disapprove to disapprove
Santorum - Deeply Disapprove
Huntsman - Neutral/ Lean approve
Barbour - Lean Disapprove / Disapprove
Bachmann - Deeply Disapprove
Bolton - Deeply Disapprove
Daniels - Disapprove
Giuliani - Disapprove
Johnson - Neutral
Paul - Disapprove
Roemer - Disapprove
Thune - Disapprove
Trump - Lean Approve (better than a conservative republican, and funnier, too)
Cain - Deeply Disapprove

[Torie]

Huckabee - Disapprove - probably vote for Obama
Gingrich - vote for Obama
Santorum - vote for Obama
Huntsman - Approve +
Barbour - Disapprove - probably vote for Obama
Bachmann - vote for Obama
Bolton - vote for Obama
Daniels - tentatively Approve (solid on fiscal matters)
Giuliani - Disapprove
Johnson (Gary?) - Approve but not for POTUS - vote for Obama
Paul (both father and son) - vote for Obama
Roemer - no opinion but skeptical
Thune - tentatively Approve
Trump - vote for Obama
Cain - vote for Obama
Romney - wild card, don't know, watch and wait
Palin - vote for Obama
Pawlenty - tentatively approve (I was impressed with his NH speech that I watched on CSPAN last night. He clearly is very well informed and no dummy)
DeMint - vote for Obama

The word "Obama" appears a lot above doesn't it? 

[sentinel]

I'm voting for Obama, but if I had to choose...

Bachmann - Strongly Disapprove
Barbour - Strongly Disapprove
Bolton - Strongly Disapprove
Cain - Strongly Disapprove
Daniels - Disapprove
Gingrich - Strongly Disapprove
Giuliani - Disapprove
Huckabee - Disapprove but like a lot on a personal level
Huntsman - Neutral
Johnson - Neutral
Palin - Strongly Disapprove
Pataki - Gotta represent. Neutral at best.
Paul - Neutral
Pawlenty - Disapprove
Roemer - Who?
Romney - Neutral
Santorum - Strongly Disapprove
Thune - Disapprove
Trump - Good TV

[seanobr]

Due to the polarizing nature of the list, I have elected to break mine into three categories: approval, disapproval, and as with the user immediately above me, those I strongly disapprove of.

Huckabee - Disapprove ("And that's what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than trying to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.")
Gingrich - Approve
Santorum - Strongly Disapprove (He is not a serious candidate for any office outside of his home state and should stop being treated as such.)
Huntsman - Approve (And who I would immediately support if he should declare his candidacy.)
Barbour - Approve
Bachmann - Strongly Disapprove (Are you being serious by including her here?)
Bolton - Strongly Disapprove
Daniels - Approve
Guiliani - Disapprove
Johnson - Strongly Disapprove
Paul(s) - Strongly Disapprove
Roemer - N/A
Thune - Approve
Trump - Strongly Disapprove (I think we can have more self-respect than this, don't you?)
Cain - Strongly Disapprove
Romney - Approve
Palin - Strongly Disapprove (Why are we even entertaining the thought of such a vacuous, insolent and crude woman being put anywhere near a position of authority?)
Pawlenty - Approve
Demint - Strongly Disapprove

For those maintaining a tally, that is seven approve, one N/A -- a confession I don't know anything about him, two disapprove, and nine strongly disapprove.

[seanobr]

Looks like Daniels is the most widely acceptable candidate to the reps/libertarians on the board - one note, if he does get the nomination, he will need to pick someone exciting from the heart of the base.  It's not fair that we've had so many establishment/liberal republican picks since Reagan.  The person who does win the nod - well, lets just say that the pressure will be so intense for that person to win because of what will happen if Obamacare is fully implemented.  If they lose, I will never ever respect any of the moderate republicans, establishment figures or friends who have said that certain individuals were the most "electable" again.  This election isn't something to be thrown away, God forbid.  I've got no doubt about the stakes.  It doesn't matter who the republican is - even if I disapprove of that person, I will willingly vote for the person with an R after their name.  Everyone needs to sit back and consider that for a second because these are different times than prior elections and it's our families' lives on the line with this one. 

The liberal Republican establishment, as embodied by John McCain, with his 82 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and his functionally ignorant, but fortunately orthodox Vice Presidential nominee?  You reference that seminal conservative Ronald Reagan: what principle of conservatism was he employing while re-imaging America from the world's largest creditor to its greatest debtor, radically expanding the military, and employing an economic theory that has left nothing but insurmountable yearly deficits in its wake?  I find it astonishing that the same people who fawn over the mythology that has been created around Reagan are now threatening to disown the Republican Party because it isn't pure enough, when no manifestation of the party has ever met their criteria.

The more hysterical you are about this upcoming election, the greater your ignorance and irrelevance.  Obama's health care reform, whatever your opinion of the individual mandate, is only a slight departure from Heritage Foundation proposals circulated during the early Clinton administration.  It is actually far more conservative than Richard Nixon's attempt to implement universal health care, which was only thwarted because it wasn't sufficiently to Senator Kennedy's liking and who later came to regret his opposing the effort.  As for the rest of Obama's accomplishments, what, pray tell, is endangering my or any other family, as you so dramatically intone?  Milquetoast financial reform that, if we are being entirely objective, should have gone even farther to prevent a recurrence of the situation that helped create the recession?  The Democratic stimulus package, which contained a number of tax credits and either had a negligible impact or marginally reduced unemployment, since it prevented a contraction of the money supply?  The tax compromise, legislation embraced by the Republican Party and that is only exacerbating Social Security's structural failings and leading to an overwhelming deficit for this fiscal year?

Take a moment to rationally examine the Obama administration and it will become clear what we are dealing with, and it has hardly reached the magnitude of what you are intimating.  As for myself, given the radicalism expected to be present in our primary, I have no intention of affirming an unconditional commitment to vote for whoever it might produce.  My self-respect is much too valuable for that.

[Sam Spade]

I need to bookmark this thread to use against people in a year and a half (I won't, but whatever). 

As for me, the odds of me voting for Obama are the same as after January 2008, in other words, zero.  The only real question is whether I vote third-party or Republican.  I will vote - I always do.

[Guderian]

Huckabee - disapprove. As far as extreme social reactionaries go he's not that bad as a person, but the Republican Party has already been nearly destroyed by his brand of conservatism. Vote 3rd party if he gets it.
Gingrich - disapprove. He's more intelligent and well-read than most people on the list, but the man doesn't have a temperament or character to run a lemonade stand, let alone a country. Vote 3rd party.
Santorum - he's just like Huckabee, except he's human garbage on top of everything else. Vote 3rd party.
Huntsman - neutral. I'd vote for him over Obama but the whole China thing makes him lousy standard-bearer against a guy who employed him for over two years.
Barbour - approve. He's a lousy national candidate but competent.
Palin - disapprove. I'd vote for Obama just to ensure her defeat is as humiliating as possible.
Bachmann - disapprove. I don't hate her enough to vote for Obama. 3rd party.
Bolton - disapprove. While people like Huckabee and Santorum destroyed Republican platform on the domestic field, people like Bolton destroyed the foreign policy. 3rd party
Daniels - approve. The strongest candidate that the Republicans have in this cycle, in my opinion.
Giuliani - disapprove. Has-been. I'd still vote for him over Obama, though.
Johnson - disapprove. Not a bad guy per se, but presidency is above his pay grade. 3rd party.
Paul - disapprove. He's old and somewhat crazy. Great for an uncle, bad for President. 3rd party.
Roemer - N/A
Romney - neutral. I'd vote for him over Obama, but he lacks conviction and Romneycare is going to be a tactical problem.
Thune - neutral. Good enough to vote for him against Obama, but why would he be someone's first choice is beyond me.
Pawlenty - neutral. He's so aggressive in pimping himself it starts to annoy me. Writing a book about your life when the most exciting thing you did was govern Minnesota? Please. I'd vote for him over Obama, still.
Trump - disapprove. Of course, if you want to start a nuclear exchange with China, he's your man. 3rd party.
DeMint - disapprove. Somewhere in class of Santorum and Huckabee. 3rd party.

[Torie]

I need to bookmark this thread to use against people in a year and a half (I won't, but whatever). 

As for me, the odds of me voting for Obama are the same as after January 2008, in other words, zero.  The only real question is whether I vote third-party or Republican.  I will vote - I always do.

You don't approve of my approval ratings Sam? 

[nhmagic]

Looks like Daniels is the most widely acceptable candidate to the reps/libertarians on the board - one note, if he does get the nomination, he will need to pick someone exciting from the heart of the base.  It's not fair that we've had so many establishment/liberal republican picks since Reagan.  The person who does win the nod - well, lets just say that the pressure will be so intense for that person to win because of what will happen if Obamacare is fully implemented.  If they lose, I will never ever respect any of the moderate republicans, establishment figures or friends who have said that certain individuals were the most "electable" again.  This election isn't something to be thrown away, God forbid.  I've got no doubt about the stakes.  It doesn't matter who the republican is - even if I disapprove of that person, I will willingly vote for the person with an R after their name.  Everyone needs to sit back and consider that for a second because these are different times than prior elections and it's our families' lives on the line with this one.  

The liberal Republican establishment, as embodied by John McCain, with his 82 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and his functionally ignorant, but fortunately orthodox Vice Presidential nominee?  You reference that seminal conservative Ronald Reagan: what principle of conservatism was he employing while re-imaging America from the world's largest creditor to its greatest debtor, radically expanding the military, and employing an economic theory that has left nothing but insurmountable yearly deficits in its wake?  I find it astonishing that the same people who fawn over the mythology that has been created around Reagan are now threatening to disown the Republican Party because it isn't pure enough, when no manifestation of the party has ever met their criteria.

The more hysterical you are about this upcoming election, the greater your ignorance and irrelevance.  Obama's health care reform, whatever your opinion of the individual mandate, is only a slight departure from Heritage Foundation proposals circulated during the early Clinton administration.  It is actually far more conservative than Richard Nixon's attempt to implement universal health care, which was only thwarted because it wasn't sufficiently to Senator Kennedy's liking and who later came to regret his opposing the effort.  As for the rest of Obama's accomplishments, what, pray tell, is endangering my or any other family, as you so dramatically intone?  Milquetoast financial reform that, if we are being entirely objective, should have gone even farther to prevent a recurrence of the situation that helped create the recession?  The Democratic stimulus package, which contained a number of tax credits and either had a negligible impact or marginally reduced unemployment, since it prevented a contraction of the money supply?  The tax compromise, legislation embraced by the Republican Party and that is only exacerbating Social Security's structural failings and leading to an overwhelming deficit for this fiscal year?

Take a moment to rationally examine the Obama administration and it will become clear what we are dealing with, and it has hardly reached the magnitude of what you are intimating.  As for myself, given the radicalism expected to be present in our primary, I have no intention of affirming an unconditional commitment to vote for whoever it might produce.  My self-respect is much too valuable for that.

And you make an excellent democrat.  You cite every single argument they make when debating republicans on everything.  There are such things as bad republicans - Nixon was one of them.  Republicans were far more liberal in that era.  Though Reagan, I admit, did deficit spend, you forget that he was the first in a revival of conservatism - the beginning of a shift in American policy.  He also had a democratic house during his tenure in office that barred him from making necessary spending cuts.  Thus, he often took what he could get to advance his goals.  Reagan did not deficit spend to the extent Obama and Bush have.  

The housing bubble combined with the national debt created the recession.  Banks loaned money to people who could not afford to pay back those loans.  This was a forced regulation put on banks during the Clinton years and continued/advanced during the Bush administration.  There were republicans who wanted to do something about Freddie and Fannie, but they never had the votes.

Your knowledge of the healthcare bill and its long term effects is limited at best.  I believe you have not read any one portion of the bill itself and do not understand its ramifications.  I have read portions of the bill and have decided independently of talking heads that it will harm my family and the country.  The tax compromise was not "embraced" by all republicans.  It passed because there are plenty of moderate republicans itching to get bipartisan legislation passed to go home and say they didn't oppose Obama on everything.

Not even most of the more moderate republicans on this board advance the argument you advance above.  You do come from Rhode Island though and that may be the reason why you are so liberal.  

I consider everything that goes on in Washington.  I find that Obama is determined to transform the country into a nation like Europe - stagnant, unproductive, socially unstable and vulnerable.

EDIT: Additionally, why is it that we always have to go for the establishment pick rather than our picks?  The establishment always asks and needs the base to support them, but when the base wins they fight them tooth and nail (Murkowski, Castle, Crist, Specter, etc.). 

[Sam Spade]

I need to bookmark this thread to use against people in a year and a half (I won't, but whatever). 

As for me, the odds of me voting for Obama are the same as after January 2008, in other words, zero.  The only real question is whether I vote third-party or Republican.  I will vote - I always do.

You don't approve of my approval ratings Sam? 

Not necessarily, Torie.  I just don't think anyone sees Obama for who he really is, yet, not the right-wing nuts on Free Republic, not the moderates, not those who love him.  Maybe I just got lucky, because I couldn't read Bush and I sure as heck couldn't read Clinton, and I was too young for the others.

My post about using this on people is in jest, of course, because people generally get in line as time passes.

[seanobr]

And you make an excellent democrat.  You cite every single argument they make when debating republicans on everything.  There are such things as bad republicans - Nixon was one of them.  Republicans were far more liberal in that era.  Though Reagan, I admit, did deficit spend, you forget that he was the first in a revival of conservatism - the beginning of a shift in American policy.  He also had a democratic house during his tenure in office that barred him from making necessary spending cuts.  Thus, he often took what he could get to advance his goals.  Reagan did not deficit spend to the extent Obama and Bush have.  

The housing bubble combined with the national debt created the recession.  Banks loaned money to people who could not afford to pay back those loans.  This was a forced regulation put on banks during the Clinton years and continued/advanced during the Bush administration.  There were republicans who wanted to do something about Freddie and Fannie, but they never had the votes.

Your knowledge of the healthcare bill and its long term effects is limited at best.  I believe you have not read any one portion of the bill itself and do not understand its ramifications.  I have read portions of the bill and have decided independently of talking heads that it will harm my family and the country.  The tax compromise was not "embraced" by all republicans.  It passed because there are plenty of moderate republicans itching to get bipartisan legislation passed to go home and say they didn't oppose Obama on everything.

Not even most of the more moderate republicans on this board advance the argument you advance above.  You do come from Rhode Island though and that may be the reason why you are so liberal.  

I consider everything that goes on in Washington.  I find that Obama is determined to transform the country into a nation like Europe - stagnant, unproductive, socially unstable and vulnerable.

EDIT: Additionally, why is it that we always have to go for the establishment pick rather than our picks?  The establishment always asks and needs the base to support them, but when the base wins they fight them tooth and nail (Murkowski, Castle, Crist, Specter, etc.).  

A revival of conservatism?  Is that how we're going to assuage the reality of Ronald Reagan fashioning himself as a champion of the ideology while governing as something different?  I can accept that; at least it's convenient justification for incongruous positions such as acceding to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 and his appalling fiscal record, unprecedented in any other period except war time.  As for the Democratic legislature he was forced to accommodate, David Stockman has been very public in admitting that Reagan's economic policy was inherently deficit creating, and it was the administration's responsibility to account for Democratic intransigence.  The debt problem we are experiencing began in earnest under Ronald Reagan, and it is not partisan to acknowledge this.  I take exception to impugning every Republican that has followed him as 'liberal' when Reagan himself was hardly the towering figure of conservative virtue that the idolatry surrounding his Presidency would suggest.

What I offered was completely factual and indicated nothing regarding my actual opinion of his health care reform legislation.  You are claiming I clearly have no knowledge of what is contained within it; how can you even discern that from what I wrote to you?  The plan is only a slight departure from Heritage Foundation proposals circulated during the early Clinton administration.  It may be completely inimical; what I am trying to indicate is that it is not exactly the polarizing testament to extremism that you are portraying it as.  If he was attempting to take his ideology to its fullest extent and accomplish this grave re-imaging of America, as your life and death struggle narrative implied, then he would've held out for a public option (which, I imagine, is what he probably wanted) or we would have seen a genuine attempt at implementing Medicare for all.  We still have a private insurance sector, and their acquiescence was obtained through the implementation of the individual mandate.  In any event, you shouldn't underestimate the conservative House's ability to negate the legislation through targeted defunding, and the inevitable ruling in the Supreme Court which may result in our favor.  There is also the attractiveness of several of its components, including remaining on a parent's insurance until 26 and abolishing limitations on preconditions, which have strong public support; these combined with a genuine Republican proposal could comprise a more palatable replacement.  

As for myself, I think one of the greatest indictments against the legislation is the sheer number of waivers that have been handed out in order to suspend the 85 percent revenue requirement, which is rather indicative of the foresight employed in designing it.

I see no reason to retract my statement on financial reform.  Furthermore, if you are advancing the argument that the Community Reinvestment Act created the eventual cascade effect, I disagree entirely.  Ellen Seidman, a director of the New America Foundation, testified in front of the House in 2008 that expansive C.R.A. activity had been brought to a close in 2001; private sub-prime mortgage issuance tripled in 2004 and 2005 alone; in Massachusetts, ninety-eight percent of the sub-prime loans issued in 2006 were by lenders who did not fall under the auspices of the C.R.A.  Alan Greenspan has contritely noted that his methodology of regulation through mutual self-interest failed to account for what was developing and largely played down the notion that the GSE's had played any substantial role in the events, which is a point I question.  Michael Lewis and Gregory Zuckerman both reached the same conclusion, which is that this was a creation of avarice and indifference; no one was under any illusion that the loans and accompanying securities were feasible, but they elected to exploit the system for as long as possible before it unraveled.  I think it is true that Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac contributed to the end result, but to proclaim the government as responsible and completely absolve the private sector sector is a crutch and an oversimplification.

George Voinovich was initially outspoken in opposing the tax legislation, but for a different reason than the remainder, who wouldn't support it because it wasn't permanent.  It also is irrefutable that the Republican Party did embrace the measure and it was a rare show of bipartisanship in an otherwise charged legislative session.   When you are running a budget deficit of our magnitude, it is rather difficult to rationalize the tax extension -- unless the object is to prevent the money supply from contracting.  I also believe we would've gotten a stimulus package under a hypothetical McCain administration, one probably laden with more tax credits, to a similar effect as Obama's.  Additionally, discretionary government spending is all of eighteen percent of the federal budget, so it is not controversial to note that any Republican deficit prescription which is unwilling to engage in entitlement reform is a completely ineffective solution.

As for your final point: a Republican in Rhode Island is inherently more liberal than the archetype.  I am a strong proponent of fiscal prudence, an unobtrusive, efficient government that can still advance the social welfare, maintaining a minimum tax burden, and a pragmatic foreign policy.  I believe in conservative policy and am certainly not a Democrat, but being a Republican doesn't entitle me to be incapable of objective judgment.  The Obama administration is liberal, but the disenchantment of the progressive movement that drove him to office is a rather glaring indicator that it has not been everything that we are so desperate to make it out to be.  Our viewpoints may be irreconcilable, but we can continue this in private messaging rather than supplant the discussion occurring in spite of us if you please.