Fear for the future - lack of Republican depth

[matt819]

I think it's fair to say that a Romney presidency would be a frightening development.

Take this a step further and consider that when you look beyond Romney and Ryan - already pathetic inadequate - there is no one under the banner of the republican party who is standing by in the wings. Take a look at the primaries: Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Pawlenty, Bachmann (who am I missing?). This is not a deep bench. Heck, it's not even a shallow bench. It's the faculty at the local clown college. And there's no one else. Akin? King? Walsh? Rice? I don't think so.

Let's assume for a moment that the election goes as we would like, and at the moment expect. That's four more years with President Obama, and we still have a very deep bench for future candidates: Obama (Michelle and the girls); Clinton (Hillary), Biden, James Webb, and a handful of reasonable, rational, intelligence representatives who will be that much more prepared in the years to come.

So what does this mean? I would argue that the voter suppression and the billionaires' attempts to buy the election will only get worse. The ugliness will increase and, in the event of a non-majority by the Democrats in the House and Senate, total legislative inaction. Overall, not a pretty picture in the political world.

[teddy51]

1. I think it would be more than frightening, I think it would be devastating!

[abumbyanyothername]

2. Two paths:

#1 -- Ryan is the nominee in 2016. I rate this as most likely. The party moves toward ideological purity and nominates a harshly conservative voice to try and hold the Ron Paul movement in the tent. Ryan is not now ready for prime time, but he could be made into a national candidate. Problem is, that unlike Bush2, Ryan actually believes that he has viable ideas of his own and cannot be dominated/shaped by the right wing PTB.

#2 -- the coalition splits. Under this scenario, I actually expect the Libertarian Party to become the more viable of the two pieces. The Libertarians run on a platform of super small government -- in both defense and entitlements (their word not mine). They also run on a socially liberal/hands off policy -- in some cases they may go states rights (gay marriage) in other cases they may stand for limited government intrustion on the rights of individuals regardless of the level of government (abortion; guns).

In the later scenario I expect the electorate to split about 45 (dem)-25 (lib)-20 (evangelicals) with 10 percent floaters in the middle.

[NCLefty]

3. You're putting his children on the bench? O.o

[matt819]

4. Maybe I miswrote

Shows how much I know (actually, don't know) about sports. I was using a baseball metaphor, probably incorrectly, about a team having a deep bench, meaning a lot of depth, strength in all areas. I probably should have phrased it differently.

In my "fantasy politics" projections, here's what I'd like to see:

2012 Obama
2016 Biden (Obama VP?)
2020 Biden
2024 Clinton
2028 Clinton
2032 Obama (Michelle)
2036 Obama
2040 - 2052 - The Obama kids

Maybe James Webb as VP for Biden, then Webb in place of Clinton (she would be getting on in years by then, but if Biden wants to retire, then you can move Clinton up a couple of terms. I guess Michelle would be in her late 60s in 2032, so maybe we'll have to settle for someone else. Those with more politically savvy than I can make some other projections (not hard, as I think the Geico gecko has more political savvy than I do).

[Overseas]

5. I found Romney scary too. Quite like Sarah Palin-- spouting platitudes, out of his depth.

He would be pushed around by war hawks and profiteers.

Our Commander in Chief was in command of the facts, and history, and national security. I hope the viewers got that.