Skip to comments.Now That We've Crucified Every Candidate.... (Here's Your Chance FReeper Nation)
Posted on 11/23/2011 6:38:16 AM PST by TheRobb7
Now That We've Crucified Every Candidate, who are we gonna support?
Take a step back and think about it for a moment:
Romney? No, for reasons stated on this site and encoded on our DNA.
Paul? No, unless you're an isolationist.
Perry? Apparently not, since my fellow FReepers appear ready to kill each other at the thought of a Perry nomination.
Santorum or Huntsman? No, because they apparently aren't pure enough either.
Cain? Maybe, but many consider 999 to be 666.
Newt? After last night's debate, FR will lynch the man and serve him on their tables tomorrow...so, no.
That leaves Bachmann, who again isn't pure enough for my fellow FReepers.
So since we insist on nominating a Priest instead of a POTUS, my question to all here is this:
SINCE YOU HAVE CRUCIFIED EVERYONE ON THAT STAGE AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER.....WHO WILL YOU SUPPORT?
(or are we hoping that no one will have enough delegates heading into Tampa, thus giving us a nice little floor fight?)
In this article Beck says : I never endorce
I honestly believe that if she were to throw her hat into the ring now, that she would quickly build enough momentum to carry her over the finish line to a win. Of course, she also has to want it, and as of right now, there's no indication from her that she does.
Ike was also a reluctant candidate. He finally had to be drafted at the convention to convince him to run.
Excellent point. While the caucus is six weeks away, at this point, I see no reason to abandon Perry. Perry has something none of the others have and that is a darned good RECORD of accomplishment in TX. I’ll take it. While Romney also has a record it does not come with the accomplishments of Perry.
I’ll go with Gingrich.
He is not the perfect candidate but do any of us doubt that he would go 3 for 3 in his debates with Obama? That claim cannot be made for any other GOP candidate.
And, at least at this point, his appeal to independent voters should be quite good. In fact I have anecdotal evidence (sample size is one, so margin of error is infinite) that he will appeal to Dems that have given up on Obama.
The”evidence”: My 90 year old lifelong Democrat and fanatical Obama supporter sister-in-law wants Newt to be elected in 2012.
Her reason: it is now finally clear to her that Obama simply doesn’t have the necessary experience to be President and, of the GOP candidates, Gingrich seems best qualified to pull us out of the economic mess we are in.
I think she is right.
ditto and ditto
Stop this war on drugs, we've not halted the flow of drugs into this country one iota!
Seal the border! Stop the drugs from entering. By the way, where have all these billions of dollars gone? No accountability...at all.
If Obama wins the next election, it might very well have been the last one we get to participate in.
Anybody but Cain, Huntsman or Romney.
It's a done deal, unless there is an impasse for the nomination.
I actually respect Newt more after last night. He knew he would take heat for his position but he made a reasonable statement about illegals.
There is so much hate on this forum for illegals that some of us would vote for a ‘kill on sight’ candidate.
That will not happen. We should look at this problem reasonably and figure out a way to handle it that’s possible and (sorry) humane and practical.
The current administration has shot down every state that tried to do something on its own. That’s why Perry stayed out of that for now.
I cannot stand Cain. He’s just not capable and not totally a nice person imo.
Reminds me of the way things were when I was in colleged (late 50s, early 60s). Democrats would beat the Hell out of each other in the primaries, then all pull together behind the wimmer. Republicans would beat the Hell out of each other in the primaries, then the losers would all go homeand sulk.
Since we can’t resurrect or clone Ronald Reagan, right now I am leaning towards Cain. Perry has some good ideas, but he has been our governor for 12 years, and I just can’t trust him. Bachman and Santorum are good, but don’t have the support. Gingrich has too much baggage. Romney and Huntsman, no.
I would support Palin if she ran, but am not counting on it.
Yeah, I have reservations about Santorum, but not for the reasons which people think. Backing Specter was a terrible choice and we all know it now. But, at the time, Santorum was chairman of the Senate reelection committee and Specter was the guy arguably the most responsible for getting Judge Clarence Thomas confirmed. So I can forgive him for this rather than pile on.
My reservations about him have to do with electability. Not only is he focused on focused on issues of social conservatism when the economy is the main issue, but he couldn't even crack 40% in his last reelection bid against an empty suit who is arguably the dumbest guy in the U.S. Senate with a penis.
Herman and Michelle, I believe, are much stronger in the likability and electability departments.
The one person who really should be on that stage was encouraged to drop out in order to give the people up there the opportunity to prove they belonged up there.
Cain, Bachmann, Limbaugh, Palin, Zombie Reagan, in that order.
Cain....... he has handled all the crap flung at him with dignity and intellegence.... he was not afraid to call out those that accused him, and then moved on... a businessman is what is needed in dc, someone who will make a decision when it is needed, not a waffler or politician looking for favors....... the rest of the field are either socialists, socialist lite, or professional politicans. We do not need any of the above....
Looks like we’ve settled for Perry for pretty much the same reasons. Perry has proven he can govern effectively.
"Better than what we have now" would be a long list, and that includes:
Personally, I would have preferred a former Alaskan governor or a current South Carolina US Senator, but they are not running. I would be more than happy with Cain or with Bachmann, who are in the race. I would accept any conservative, and reluctantly almost any republican, even Newt (but not the leftie "front runner" from Massachusetts). I will be voting for the US House and Senate, no matter what, but I will not under any circumstances support Mitt Romney or anyone else that I can't trust to repeal ObamaCare.
“Perry? Apparently not, since my fellow FReepers appear ready to kill each other at the thought of a Perry nomination.”
It’s more like “kill themselves at the thought of a Perry/Obama debate.” It would be downright embarrassing for our side.
I support Cain.
“Speaker Gingrich is standing even more strongly on my list. Perry and Cain are there too.”
I like all three names, but “existentially”, I have a problem trusting a guy two wives couldn’t trust. Seems to me Gingrich is too much “out for Number One”. That said, my gut is that I’d vote for him if he was the nominee, which I can’t say for Romney [yeah, yeah, “guarantees O will serve 4 more years”, yadda yadda yadda.] I’m still analyzing my own reactions.
Jon Huntsman, by some distance. He is the most qualified candidate in the field. His record is a superb one. It is a record FAR more conservative than many give him credit for.
Those who call him a ‘liberal’ obviously haven’t checked out his record. How many pro-life, pro-gun, tax-cutting, Ryan Plan supporting liberals, do you know?
Cain — Still my top choice. His 9-9-9 plan has gaps and flaws, but it at least sparked a dialog about revamping the tax system. He seems to have fended off the lying liars who alleged sexual harassment. They’ve been rather silent since his attorney Lin Wood advised them to “think twice.” Apparently they are indeed re-engaging the brain cells accordingly. I hope he rebounds.
Santorum — I’d be quite happy with a Santorum presidency, but the country is too far left now. It simply won’t elect him.
Bachmann — Ditto here. I’d support her, but she isn’t going to go the distance. America — and the GOP — aren’t that conservative anymore.
Gingrich — Intellectually brilliant, but too prone to “wildcat” acts... that imagery of him sitting on the couch with that witch Pelosi, shilling for an Al Gore-backed organization (”WE”) — along with the rather “moderate” views on resolving the “what-to-do” question vis-a-vis illegals.. tells me he has an innate squishiness on issues that matter. That said.. if he’s the last man standing, vs. a Romney nomination.. I’ll support him.
Paul — Hell no. He and Huntsman will NEVER get my vote. The guy’s a nutcase whose pollyannaish views on foreign policy would get Americans killed. How GOPers in any state would give him more than 1% support is beyond me. WTH are you thinking, IOWA???
Huntsman — Like Paul, Huntsman will never get my vote. Please tell me again what would be the difference between a Huntsman presidency and four more years of Obama? I’m not seeing the distinction.
Perry — His stance in immigration gets me under the craw, but, like Newt, if he’s the last man standing vs. Romney, I’ll vote for him.
Romney — Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up... and leave the room?
The ones I WISH were in the race: Jim DeMint, Mike Pence, Bob McDonnell.
I don’t hear him saying “can’t we all get along” at all. I hear a sincere question that deserves sincere input. I feel the same way he does - there’s got to be more analysis for me before I commit, because nobody’s a clear voice yet.
But you have influence now. You can donate to your favorite and you can make calls for his campaign in Iowa, for example. That’s really all those of us with late primaries can do. So many drop out before our states get to vote.
As long as we continue to let the media pick the nominee, this is what you are going to get. You had talented newcomers like Thad McCotter of Michigan who were blackballed from the debates. He could have really shaken things up and gotten rid of the pretenders a lot more quickly. Smarter than Newt, better conservative record, great debater, no personal baggage. Gets left out of the polls cited to gain access to the debates. No way to select your flag bearer. As far as Gingrich, he’s done after last night’s amnesty support. Unless something extraordinary happens, it will be Romney, as he has the organization and the money behind him.
I love the 9-9-9 plan because of the OTHER things it does- it removes the IRS and all power from the senators and congress critters to make new tax law to favor one business over another
combine 9-9-9 with Perry’s plan of half time washington offices
and gingrichs plans
And we got the perfect storm for democraps- by holding so many debates they have allowed us to see and pick from ALL these great ideas- we just need one candidate to decide he is going to implement the best of all of the plans-
I think if Cain did that, and selected Gingrich we have a good one!
I think Cain would lean toward picking Gingrich- by his VP candidate question
Gingrich is not perfect and he is being HONEST about the immigration issue.
As much as we would like purity and for a candidate to say “throw them all out” - it really is not practical.
The biggest problem with illegal immigration is that the government has ignored it for 40 years. Now to suddenly start enforcing it is GOING TO HAVE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
There are people who have lived their whole life here illegally- Mexcio was never their home.
So, loick donw the border, toss out those who hold more allegiance to Mexico than to USA and we will then need to think of a way to deal with people who are illegal, but lived here for their whole life- and it WILL require immediate registration as illegal resident alien, and no welfare
I’ve asked the same questions. I believe they will support 0bama.
Excellent post. I agree with everything you wrote.
In the pecking order of loyalties:
Palin had to do what is best for her family. A Downs Syndrome child needs a lot of TLC, preferably from Mom. Sarah is storing up riches in heaven.
If we totally ignore his butt licking of BHO or his his stance on man made global warming you might be correct.
Huntsman is not who you think he is.
Newt Gingrich is by far and away the most impressive think out of the box candidate we have.
I want a pres that can give you some background and historical perspective on why your 20 year old son has to walk around the rest of his life on a titanium stump because of a war that he sent you off to.
I want a republican president for a change that can answer hard questions from the press and dosen’t look like Mike Tyson on Jeopardy, and an intellectual embarassment.(see Perry,bush,Cain).
Newt gets my money. Newt gets my vote. Not only do I agree and am enlightned by his views he is the best politician out there. The game is still politics and Newt knows how to play the game.
I’m still riding the Cain train, but I would enthusiastically support Santorum or Bachmann. I could support Newt, but his forays off the conservative reservation and some of his character issues dampen my enthusiasm. Perry would be acceptable, but he seems like another George W. Bush. Huntsman is disqualified because he served in the Obama administration and was a big-spending governor. Romney is out of the question.
“Speaker Gingrich is standing even more strongly on my list. Perry and Cain are there too.”
Well, you managed to pick the three that are most pro amnesty. Bravo, well done.
While successful foreign policy requires that our President have a firm grasp on the inner workings of other nations, it also requires that these same nations have a clear understanding of where our President stands, and that he stand for the U.S.
The first can be acquired; the second is a matter of character and integrity, and so cannot. With Cain’s executive style and intelligence, any possible shortcomings in the global arena would be quickly overcome, and are thus of limited concern to me.
(Recall, for example, the effectiveness of Reagan: much of his success in this area, I believe, was a direct result of our enemies —and friends— knowing exactly what he believed, and that he was a man of principle; there was no doubt in their minds that he meant what he said.)
If anyone can answer this. What is Newt’s position on the obamacare law? Did he say he would repeal it?
We are going with Newt warts and all. He sees the big picture and that is what is needed. He has a vision for America not just a plan for tax reform. I don’t see a vision for America coming from any of the others even though I love Herman to death. If you watched the debate last night you saw time and time again Newt Gingrich talking about a bigger picture on all the issues. He’s right. I have shaken his hand and he’s not the warmest guy in the world but I don’t want to pal around with the President I just want him to fix the mess.
""""There is so much hate on this forum for illegals that some of us would vote for a kill on sight candidate""""
WELL SAID. I'm not one of those kind and pray I never will be.
When it comes down to push and shove, at this point I’d have to go with Newt.
Perry had a big enough challenge to overcome by being a Texas Governor who sounded like W. By comparision, W is articulate, smooth and clean.
I understand your position but I do not entirely agree with it.
Yes, Newt has said he’d repeal it.
People keep saying that ‘his stance on immigration.’
It’s totally without merit. He has a plan to control the border and I think it’s workable.
He is absolutely against illegal immigration. Too many people are focusing on the in-state tuition thing which is a flyspeck and not worthy of thinking about. It was a pragmatic decision by the Texas legislature and a well-thought out one. It costs us nothing and could help in the long run.
We cannot reasonably expect to snap fingers and get rid of all the illegals. Newt pointed that out also.
I would deport immediately any illegal who violates the law. I would include any drug possession (at all) and any other offenses except for speeding tickets. On speeding I would have a three times you’re out position. But any DWI, for example, you’re out.
We can’t do this unless we get rid of the current administration. They have shot down every state that’s tried to do things on their own.
I am pretty much where you are my friend.
Perry’s “stance on immigration” also includes his decision to approve in-state tuition for illegals’ kids.
Anything that creates a magnet effect — as that does — incentivizing illegals to cross our southern border should be a no-go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.