Posted on 07/14/2010 8:12:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
With two years until the next presidential election, several of the Republican candidates from the 2008 election cycle are trying to posture themselves for another run at the GOP nomination. To be blunt, none of the major players from the last election should be anywhere near the 2012 nomination. They have too many skeletons and too little backbone.
Huckabee is a committed social conservative. From what I have seen, he is devoutly religious, and often shares his views about faith. Huckabee seems like a nice guy, a good neighbor. But America is not craving a social conservative. We don’t need a “feel-good,” “compassionate,” president, we need someone willing to take radical liberals like Pelosi head-on. We need a fiscal conservative willing to slash the runaway entitlement spending built up by Congressional Democrats. Huckabee may be the most moral presidential candidate in recent history, but I struggle to imagine him rolling back liberal regression.
Before there was ObamaCare, there was RomneyCare, the Massachusetts health care plan. I don’t often advocate single-issue politics, but this is a major issue. How can we trust a man who brought an equally destructive—albeit constitutional—health care takeover to his own state to repeal the Democrat takeover of our health care at the national level? The simple answer: we can’t.
Politically, Giuliani is probably the most dependable, but he is a New England Republican. He is a “moderate” who supported “comprehensive immigration reform” to provide a “path to citizenship” on the 2008 campaign trail. Amnesty never has worked; amnesty never will work; it fails every time it is tried. If the immigration snafu isn’t enough to take down Giuliani among Conservatives, Democrats are sure to break out the scandal file and bring up the same ethics charges that stymied his campaign the last time around. All-in-all, unless he’s facing a weak Democrat with a continued GOP upswing, Giuliani is a losing candidate.
And finally, if McCain chooses to run in 2012, he is a fool. If the Republican party selects him as the nominee, then it deserves to go down in flames.
Petraus is liberal, he voted for Zero
____________
Prove it, post some links
And finally, if McCain chooses to run in 2012, .....
We’ve got to make sure democrats cannot vote in the republican primary. That’s what happened last time.
Also, the media was for mcLame beng the nominee. He won NY and a few places like that and it was game over. The south is very important to the republican party. It’s a shame the nominee was decided before the south even had a say in it. McCAIN was nominated by traditionally DEMOCRATIC STATES and demos voting in the primary.
Odumbo couldn’t wait to get rid of McCrystal and tie Petraeus up in Afghanistan,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html
http://themoderatevoice.com/48651/general-confusion-mcchrystal-petraeus/
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=petraeus_12
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022515.php
Petraeus named second most influential “conservative”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/11/02/petraeus/index.html
A Northeastern Scott Brown Republican?
Is Petraeus a Republican?
Petraeus is registered to vote as a Republican in New Hampshire—he once described himself to a friend as a northeastern Republican, in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller—but he said that around 2002, after he became a two-star general, he stopped voting.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/petraeus-republican
Herman CAIN!
Palin/Bachmann 2012. Sometimes it takes a mama lion to save our country.
I was raised by one, and we don’t back down when our family/country is threatened!
They can play their dirty, nasty, totally discredited race card all they want. You’re messing with moms here that care about God, family and country.
I went to a McCain rally in ‘08 where he said 0bama was not a bad man. I knew then that something was nefarious. What a pantload!
We simply want a better life for our children and women are the harbinger and protector of freedom that, I guess, one can get away with in this politically correct world.
She's a gift to America from God.
;-/
Lady Liberty stands at our shore and holds her torch high. Women with torches may symbolize what it'll take to put this country back on track- for the future of their children, for the future of this country- for they are one and the same.
A great leader inspires others to do great things while accepting the nature of mankind and all it's frailties. That's why we have a Constitution- to limit the evil that government, with it's power, can wield over individuals whose natural rights must be protected.
Certain 'truths' are self-evident and any leader, male or female, who understands this and is willing to lead with them will not only inspire others but will enhance the human experience for all, including those who harbor reservations.
ps. I like your ticket.
Michelle Bachman
Jindal, his parents are from India..did they become citizens before he was born?
Petraus..I have it from a friend who retired from the Army that he is like a Colin Powell and that oddly McChrystal was more the warrior..so no not him either.
Barbour..maybe
Paul Ryan said he would not run..he has little kids and wants to be able to do his congressional job but also be there for his little kids.
So did McCrystal
I know McCrystal did but I don’t think Petraeus did.
I like all of those better than any of the others, including Palin.
UhmmmmJindal was BORN in Baton Rouge.
Jeeze.
Jindal was BORN in Baton Rouge.
Were his parents US citizens at the time?
What does that matter? As we all know from the illegal immigration debacle any child born here is automatically an American citizen, period.
WTF?
The parents have to be US citizens to be eligible for anyone to be eligible for the presidency.
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.