It's slim pickings for sure, especially give the number of decent conservatives who didn't run (Paul Ryan, Jim DeMint, John Bolton, etc.) or dropped out (Pawlenty, McCotter, etc.) Of the second tier candidates, I still rank Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Herman Cain above Mick Pomney. Nobody seems to have any momentum at this point. Of course Huckabee was polling about 2% in fall 2007 against Rudy McRomney, and he went on to win the Iowa caucus in January, so who knows?
Cain was a long-shot to begin with and after Gingrinch he had the most problems early in his campaign, and it seemed for a while he wouldn't last long. He does seem to be improving now. We'll see. As I've told Cain supporters, if he's still in the race and winning delegates by the time Illinois voters, I'd be happpy to vote for him, but I don't see that happening.
I like Santorum. Pre-Arlen Specter endorsement I would have considered him a great candidate for a presidential ticket (at least for veep), but after his 2006 loss I figured he was just embarrassing himself and would be DOA in a 2012 presidential campaign. Still, if he somehow won the nomination I think he'd be a far better GOP nominee and President than Mick Pomney.
Bachmann I've already covered. I think she's the best of the three candidates when it comes to conservaitve principles but I sure hope her campaign can get back on top, it's not looking good.
>> Like you, I wish that Republicans had better candidates. We should have at least a few candidates who have been a governor and either a cabinet member or a U.S. senator, including John Ashcroft, Dirk Kempthorne, Judd Gregg, and/or Ed Schaefer. Among the current candidates, Roemer is the best, since he’s a conservative who has a variety of political experience. <<
I consider Roemer a non-candidate because he's pretty much invisible (sorry Phil), but that's also due to the media ignoring him. And he's another one that used to be a RAT. But heck, I'll add Roemer to the mix and put him to the list of candidates I'd perfer over Mick Pomney just to show how much I dislike those two. If the choice on the ballot was Romney, Perry, or Roemer, I'd be for Buddy too!
One name I didn't include on the second tier list is Newt Gingrich. From what I hear (and admittedly I haven't watched most of the debates), he's done an excellent job debating and really shined at these events. I don't doubt that, Newt has always been a extremely sharp-witted guy and great at giving off-the-cuff remarks. But I'd rank him before Romney at this point. Way too much personal baggage, he was a terrible leader for the GOP when he was Speaker, and I met him in person and he's an a-hole. Can't see myself ever voting for the guy.
>>> On immigration Perry is pandering to his Texas voters many of whom are Hispanic. But Romney probably had three Hispanic voters in MA when he came out for amnesty and vetoed an MA Dream Act. He was for amnesty then simply to provide cheaper labor to business, as with TARP and stimulus's are all his big business priories . Romney gets no points from me on that issue. <<
I've seen the argument "Perry only panders to illegals cuz he's from a border state and he needs to win over the hispanic vote there" blah blah blah, and sorry, I'm not buying it. Part of the reason is because I live in a state (Illinois) that is nowhere near the Mexican border but they pander to illegals just as much as Perry does. New Mexico is a fellow border state that actually has a GREATER percentage of hispanics than TX, but a LOWER percentage of illegals. The Governor there is a conservative Republican of hispanic decent (Susana Martinez) and she has been very outspoken AGAINST handouts to illegals (she's even been attacked as a "bad Catholic", "traitor to her heritage", etc. because of it).
Again, I refer freepers to THIS map. You can see which states are crawling with illegals and which aren't. I believe Texas is crawling with illegals because politicians like Perry and GWB have rolled out the welcome mat for years. Look at Pennysvania and NJ on this map. There's geographically in the same area and both are on the east coat, nowhere near the Mexican border. One is filled with illegals and the other has less than 2% illegals. Why is that? I would say it's because of leadership in their states. NJ was a corrupt illegal alien loving cesspool for years. (and one could argue it still is):
