2016 Polls: Republican Candidate

[RGCheek]

Romney gets a lot of flack on abortion from some. That’s understandable but it should be pointed out Planned Parenthood spent millions campaigning against him and said this: …

So why did the largest abortion provider spend so much money and say all of this on Romney?? They are the opposition, they would have stood the most to lose so I do listen to this. This other is said in places but I don’t buy it.
.

They used Romney post epiphany for donor solicitation scare tactics - a common thing in politics.

That does not prove that they necessarily thought that they couldn’t work with him to get some pro-abortion legislation passed.

 

[oldgraymare2]

I personally think that Paul Ryan would be a good pick. He seems to be an orthodox Catholic and that would surely affect his politics.

Hi Holly,

He is a really nice guy. My husband and I met him years ago, when he first started running for office in Wisconsin. I believe that he is a very devout Catholic.

 

[powerofk]

Repealing Glass/Steagall was neither conservative nor wise. Reagan was more of a cultural conservative than merely an economic conservative. You seem to take ‘free trade’ to be the conservative view of economics and it is not. To conserve means to find value in the status quo and defend it. Repealing Glass/Steagall was a horrid mistake

Except for the fact that then, as now, most so-called “Conservatives” were railing for fewer restrictions. On everything. To the point where many “Conservatives” think that just about any restriction is a bad restriction. I agree that repealing Glass/Steagall was a mistake. Down the road, it would lead to the housing bubble and crash. But when Congress, back in 2009, reimplemented even some of the Glass/Steagall restrictions through the Dodd/Frank bill, the Dems had to do this with minimal, if any, GOP support. Seriously.

Remember, there are “small-c” conservatives and “large-C” “Conservatives”. The two aren’t necessarily synonymous. You’re right, in that “small-c” conservatives are about defending the status quo, and making sure the society is a sustainable one. “Large-C” “Conservatives” are about following what the power-brokers on the “Right” want. There’s a huge difference. Repealing Glass/Steagall made no sense under “small-c” conservatism, but it was what people who sponsored “large-C” “Conservatism” wanted.

But I diverge. Before 2000, we didn’t speak of the country as “red” and “blue” states. And I think it’s defeatist for the GOP - and the Dems, for that matter - to think of it that way. It ends up meaning that, in most cases, the only states worth worrying about are states that voted for GWB twice but voted for Obama twice (mainly FL, OH, CO, IA, and VA). That’s pretty defeatist, thinking that most of the rest of the states are so out of reach that they’re practically not worth even advertising in, let alone visiting after the primaries. Think about it - Clinton, as a Dem, easily won several of the southern states (not only his home state of AR, but also TN, AZ, and several others.) Twice. He actually had collected more than enough electoral votes needed to win election before 9pm Eastern Time. Twice. Reagan and GHW Bush both won CA, MI, and many other states now considered solidly blue (of course, Reagan won 49 of the 50 states in 1984). In fact, before 1992, CA and MI pretty much were GOP strongholds as far as the Presidential election went, yet neither state has voted GOP since.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s time for candidates from both parties to do what Nixon did in 1960 (though he started it so late that he was exhausted by the first debate, which cost him). If I were a campaign manager, I’d suggest this: after wrapping up the nomination, visit every single state in the country. More than once. Go to areas where the people will probably never vote for you. Show that you’re willing to be the President of the United States - not just the President of the Republican Party or the President of the Democratic Party. If people boo you offstage for speaking your mind, so be it. But at least show that you have the fortitude to not only “preach to the choir”. Your opponents might not like what you have to say - but many people on the fence might be won over - not necessarily out of agreeing with you, but due to respecting the integrity of your message. Plus, you’ll make the “true believers” more excited, because they’ll be more likely to be convinced that you do believe what you say. People need a reason to vote FOR a candidate - not just a reason to vote AGAINST the other guy.

 

[ishii]

PathFinder, to the extent that I understand your below post, here is my response:

I'll say it again, the South is solid Red, if someone comes to the fore, that's who we should vote on. Those votes are counted on but it is fairly sorry to consider someone from where the vote is so strong to try to squeeze in Ohio or other swing states that often don't swing anyway. Oh sure, nominate a Scott Walker so maybe one can get Wisconsin or nominate a Hispanic like Rubio because we want to please Hispanics but forget the base who actually votes solidly for the candidate. .

Yes - we have to consider politics and political reality when choosing who to nominate for president. Regional balance has long been a hallmark of electoral politics: Kennedy chose LBJ. Reagan chose Bush (more ideological balance). Dole chose Kemp - again, ideological balance. My reason for nominating Scott Walker is this: if he wins his re-election - he would be a governor from a swing state who managed to convince moderates and independents to vote for him. If he’s evangelical, then fine. But he doesn’t fit the stereotype of the “religious right” type candidate as his main issues are not social issues but taking on the unions, spending, etc.

Scott Walker would be an excellent choice, he has to win his governorship for the 3rd time in 4 years and guess what? He’s an Evangelical…

Good for him. He is not known as a “religious right” type of governor.

Reagan was moved to California when he was about 26. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan You can’t tell me he didn’t learn a lot of his commonsense when he was younger but yet, when you address Bush Sr., he is now the Patrician from the Northeast. We certainly are seeing parts of Reagan’s background as being shortchanged…

Reagan is known for being an actor - and a conservative governor of California who went on to be president. He is not known for being a southerner.

Also, if you are calling someone from the Southwest, Texas or the South an Evangelical Preacher, perhaps you could tell us whom this is? I’m not aware of any of these potential candidates as being preachers. If this is a label with a negative connotation, we should see it for that. The likes of Rick Perry has done a lot for the right to life and please, we don’t need to hear some patronizing “good he did that but I’m not for him”, no, I’m for what he has done just like I am for what Walker and Christie have done…

I am calling Huckabee a preacher, because that is what he is. He also plays bass in Christian rock band. ***He also recently said, and I quote: “God will remove his hand of protection of America if we don’t stand with Israel.” ***

He is a nut.

A solid Conservative. I do think the Leftist machine is so active that perhaps Huckabee couldn’t make it through the process, it might leave others though as being possible. Perry may be hurt a little bit by that indictment, I don’t know. .

Huckabee is a “Jer USA lem” type evangelical conservative, and Perry can’t remember his own thoughts in a televised debate. Whatever their other strengths might be, they certainly wouldn’t be strong candidates for the general election, imo.

Ishii

 

[Path_Finder]

Ronaldus Maximus’ 11th commandment as they say, the Great Communicator.

Thou Shalt Not Criticize Other Republicans.

 

[ishii]

Overall, some pretty insightful comments. Here are some of my comments:

And see, that, right there, is the problem.  Reagan was, first and foremost, a foreign policy conservative. Reagan claimed to be an economic conservative and a social conservative.  However, one could easily say that Clinton was more economically conservative than Reagan, as Clinton, with a GOP Congress, eliminated the general welfare program, balanced the budget, and repealed the Glass/Stegall Act.  And Reagan really wasn't deeply religious, either. Ford and Carter were both much more religious than Reagan; Reagan just understood the power of the "Values Voters" and was able to get them to back him by adopting the main objectives that they had at the time - being against abortion and Communism.  Honestly, the reason Reagan was able to pull his coalition together so well was due to the fact that he was a polished actor and was able to convince people that he really believed what he said - whether he believed it or not.

Reagan cut taxes, but was unable to cut the budget - as Tip O’neil, not Reagan, controlled the purse strings. Clinton, otoh, had a very conservative congress led by Newt Gingrich to “help” him be the economic conservative that you credit him as being. (he wasn’t). I think you do a disservice to the man when you question whether Reagan really believe in the policies he proposed. He wasn’t an outwardly or formally religious man, but if you read his writings and letters you will find that he had a strong faith in God and believed strongly that America was very blessed by God. Clinton, very reluctantly ended up signing the welfare reform act - after vetoing it twice !! Yet you give him a lot of credit for being an economic conservative ?

GHW Bush was also a foreign policy conservative - in fact, foreign policy was his main area of expertise (I actually believe he would have made a better Secratary of State than President), and he even had a diplomatic award named after him. But he knew little about economics, and when re-election came around, appeared astounded by things that everyday Americans had seen for several years on a daily basis (such as scanners at check-outs).

Bush was not a very good politician. Whether looking at his watch in the debate, choosing Dan Quayle as running mate, or the scanner at check-out (Obama had a similar event but of course nothing was made out of it by the Democrat press) he never seemed to get it right. I always admired him and still do.

GW Bush was a religious conservative. There’s a reason why Dems created a map of the US after the 2004 elections which dubbed the states that voted for GW Bush “Jesus-land”. Both of GW Bush’s victories were extremely narrow, and Dems are still fuming over Florida from 2000 and Ohio from 2004.

Agree. If we nominate a candidate known mostly as being of, by and for “Jesus land” then we will likely lose to a candidate from “secular land.”

It seems to me that the best option for the GOP would be, first and foremost, someone who is conservative on foreign policy. Not an all-out war hawk, mind you (Reagan was no war hawk), but at the same time, able to follow through on any threats and/or promises made. Secondly, conservative on social issues, at least enough so that social voters don’t feel that only “lip service” is being performed. Show up to the March for Life and the March for Marraige. Encourage Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution affirming life in the womb. Ask for PP to be taken out of the federal budget. I think it’s suffices to say, that at the Presidential level, conservatism on economic policy seems to be the least important of the three to people who might consider voting for a GOP Prez.

In light of 2012, we need a candidate who will not only do the things you recommend while the nominee, but have a record of having already done those things. (which Romney did not).

I am not a political expert (as if I needed to make that clear). However, I do think that in light of the past 8 years, the incompetence in foreign policy, economic policy, lackluster recovery, scandal after scandal that a couple of governors with a track record of accomplishments might well be a formidable ticket. I have been suggesting a possible Walker/Jindal ticket. But really a Walker/Rubio, or a Rubio/Jindal ticket or Walker/Martinez ticket might just be the ticket. Or a Christie/Jindal ticket.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

To conserve means to find value in the status quo and defend it.

Or to find value in what existed before the status quo (if the status quo is secular leftism).

One can have a form of faith without being religious. Reagan was not religious but he was a man of faith.

Well said.

I think I agree with you on this part. Rolling back some of the Gay Marriage court decrees would also help.

Agree.

Ishii

 

[jen_fla]

Not yet. But where was Reagan in 1978? True, he had nearly won the nomination in 1976 but I don’t think he had yet captured the imagination of the electorate. He wasn’t yet what he would become later. He had to overcome the warmonger label. Maybe its better that no one candidate has captured the imagination of the electorate yet or be the hands down favorite to win the nomination - like the situation the Dems are in with Hillary. For the Dems its Hillary or nobody really. I would rather be in the GOP position.

Anyway, here is my take on some of the candidates:

Rick Perry - his flameout in 2012 still bothers me. And he is a southern white male evangelical conservative. Is that the candidate that will appeal to enough voters to win?

Chris Christie - deserves a 2nd look: if he can put the bridge incident/scandal behind him, then he might yet be a major contender. His embrace of Obama on election eve still bothers me a great deal.

Santorum - I still think a white conservative Catholic whose last election was a double digit loss is not a candidate who can appeal to a wide enough group to be taken seriously.

Ted Cruz - too much of a conservative firebrand/narrow appeal.

Bobby Jindal - he needs to work on his communication skills but he is a brilliant man with a lot of great ideas. No one could accuse a Jindal candidacy of lacking new, fresh ideas or being just another white candidate. Jindal/Walker. (or vice versa).

Rubio - my old favorite. Lost some of his luster in recent years with the immigration flip. Still can’t be counted out.

Huckabee - another white, male, southern evangelical. Not the candidate for 2016.

**Rand Paul - very intriguing. Is he electable? **

Romney - I liked him in 2012. But I don’t think he fought hard enough to counter Democrat narrative/lies. And his campaign made a lot of mistakes. I think its time for a different candidate.

Jeb Bush - Bad last name. And wobbly on immigration.

Overall: we have enough qualified candidates this time around that we don’t need a bunch of flavor of the month / gimmicky candidates: Bachman, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, et al.

Ishii

IMHO Rand and Cruz are the only candidates who can pull the independents and steal some votes from the democrats. Bush, Romney, Perry and Christie are seen by too many (including myself) as RINOs and many (R) voters would probably stay home in disgust. I can tell you if it comes down to Hillary and Bush, I’ll break down and cry for a year and hold a funeral for our country. I know plenty of people who feel the same way.

 

[ishii]

IMHO Rand and Cruz are the only candidates who can pull the independents and steal some votes from the democrats. Bush, Romney, Perry and Christie are seen by too many (including myself) as RINOs and many (R) voters would probably stay home in disgust. I can tell you if it comes down to Hillary and Bush, I’ll break down and cry for a year and hold a funeral for our country. I know plenty of people who feel the same way.

Rand Paul, yes. Cruz is a conservative fire-brand whose brand of politics works in red states like Texas, but wouldn’t play in purple or blue states. Cruz is known most for being in opposition to Obama, less known for having any kind of positive agenda of his own.

Bush will not run, imo. But agree - his nomination would be unfortunate. Perry is not a Rino. He is a bona fide conservative and a courageous pro-lifer as well.

Look - nominate a true-blue conservative and you get 40-43% of the vote. But you have to get another 5-8% to win. To do that, you have to appeal to moderates. That is the political reality.

Ishii

 

[Path_Finder]

IMHO Rand and Cruz are the only candidates who can pull the independents and steal some votes from the democrats. Bush, Romney, Perry and Christie are seen by too many (including myself) as RINOs and many (R) voters would probably stay home in disgust. I can tell you if it comes down to Hillary and Bush, I’ll break down and cry for a year and hold a funeral for our country. I know plenty of people who feel the same way.

Cruz and Paul, Freshman Senators who basically can’t point to any legislative accomplishments unless it is something like fillibustering.

Christie has stood up for life, I would urge name-callers to perhaps call these people Conservatives in Name Only not Republicans in Name Only unless one can actually show they are not following the Republican Platform and show the Republican party does not welcome these types.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t see a significant difference between Romney and Obama on the issues I most care about.

Abortion; Romney says he had a moment of epiphany after years of supporting it as governor of Mass and of course Obama wants abortion to be as easily available as junk food. No difference in any meaningful way - rhetoric with bad record vrs bad rhetoric with bad record. I think records talk and rhetoric walks.

Gun rights; Romney is not a strong 2nd amendment man and neither is Obama.

Unemployment and the economy; Romney was talking about policies that would make Wall Street more profitable, not more helpful to middle class families. Obama has good rhetoric of being supportive of middle class families but no record of such. Records count, rhetoric is only so much air. No diff.

And I could go on more.

Romney was not a choice; he was a smaller liter echo of Obama.

A good example of what I was talking about. Conservatives will continue to be smashed politically in this country until they gain a better understanding of what a liberal really is.

Conservatives who did not understand the nature of liberalism elected Obama in 2012, and they’ll continue to do that until they realize there is a tremendous amount of difference between electing an Obama or a Romney, Cruz, Bush, Walker, whoever you want to name.

Do conservative “purists” really expect the left to announced someday that “I really am different from the conservatives you eschew because we tell you they’re ‘no different’. I’m different in that my objective is to create a permanent leftist constituency in which nothing you think or way will matter when we turn this country into a full-blown socialist state”? Do they really expect that?

Do conservatives who titter at Obama’s constant fundraising not realize that’s the means by which a hard left clique controls the otherwise towering egos of Dem senators and reps in congress, so that one man in the senate, for example, controls it totally just as Nancy Pelosi controlled them in the House totally? Conservatives snicker at Obama for all his fundraising, thinking it demonstrates what a “poor leader” he is. It’s the exact opposite, at least for his inner circle, and given the left’s real objectives. Meanwhile 'true conservatives" contribute nothing to the RNC or to conservative movements or candidates because they believe the leftist propaganda that declares the Repubs are “no different” from the Dems.

Be assured the left doesn’t believe that or they wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing. They know full well who their real opposition is even if “purist” conservatives don’t.

 

[estesbob]

A good example of what I was talking about. Conservatives will continue to be smashed politically in this country until they gain a better understanding of what a liberal really is.

Conservatives who did not understand the nature of liberalism elected Obama in 2012, and they’ll continue to do that until they realize there is a tremendous amount of difference between electing an Obama or a Romney, Cruz, Bush, Walker, whoever you want to name.

Do conservative “purists” really expect the left to announced someday that “I really am different from the conservatives you eschew because we tell you they’re ‘no different’. I’m different in that my objective is to create a permanent leftist constituency in which nothing you think or way will matter when we turn this country into a full-blown socialist state”? Do they really expect that?

Do conservatives who titter at Obama’s constant fundraising not realize that’s the means by which a hard left clique controls the otherwise towering egos of Dem senators and reps in congress, so that one man in the senate, for example, controls it totally just as Nancy Pelosi controlled them in the House totally? Conservatives snicker at Obama for all his fundraising, thinking it demonstrates what a “poor leader” he is. It’s the exact opposite, at least for his inner circle, and given the left’s real objectives. Meanwhile 'true conservatives" contribute nothing to the RNC or to conservative movements or candidates because they believe the leftist propaganda that declares the Repubs are “no different” from the Dems.

Be assured the left doesn’t believe that or they wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing. They know full well who their real opposition is even if “purist” conservatives don’t.

A perfect example of this is Kansas where Pat Roberts may very well lose because conservative “purists” are throwing a hissy fit over the loss of their preferred candidate in the primaries. The end result could be a very Liberal Kansas senator and continuation of a Democrat senate.

When the Left saw their preferred candidate was doing poorly they pressured him to drop out leading the way for the Liberal independent to defeat Roberts,

 

[RGCheek]

Maybe, just maybe, it’s time for candidates from both parties to do what Nixon did in 1960 (though he started it so late that he was exhausted by the first debate, which cost him). If I were a campaign manager, I’d suggest this: after wrapping up the nomination, visit every single state in the country. More than once. Go to areas where the people will probably never vote for you. Show that you’re willing to be the President of the United States - not just the President of the Republican Party or the President of the Democratic Party. If people boo you offstage for speaking your mind, so be it. But at least show that you have the fortitude to not only “preach to the choir”. Your opponents might not like what you have to say - but many people on the fence might be won over - not necessarily out of agreeing with you, but due to respecting the integrity of your message. Plus, you’ll make the “true believers” more excited, because they’ll be more likely to be convinced that you do believe what you say. People need a reason to vote FOR a candidate - not just a reason to vote AGAINST the other guy.

I agree in that I think that a candidate should mount a ‘full court press’ until the last month of the campaign then focus on the swing states that can lock the election. They might be a different set of states by then. In the meantime use the VP nominee and other popular locals to gin up the base and prep for the general election till the President can join in.

Yes the popular wisdom is to focus what extra resources you have on the swing states that can lock the election; that is the prevailing wisdom.

But the popular wisdom is often the popular wisdom because no one will try something different and we wind up with a Black Swan situation without even realizing it.

 

[RGCheek]

A perfect example of this is Kansas where Pat Roberts may very well lose because conservative “purists” are throwing a hissy fit over the loss of their preferred candidate in the primaries. The end result could be a very Liberal Kansas senator and continuation of a Democrat senate.

When the Left saw their preferred candidate was doing poorly they pressured him to drop out leading the way for the Liberal independent to defeat Roberts,

A great many conservatives are sick to death of voting for people that put in a do-nothing coward like House Speaker Boehner in as the House Speaker. Boehner says that Obama has failed to uphold his oath of office, but wont take action as he has a duty to do. Boehner has also become too afraid of using the power of the budget, thinking Obama will always win on any budget battle due to the press giving the White House a monopoly on air time.

I could go on and on, but the point is that the GOP side of the story NEVER gets told by the main stream press. The GOP always has to let other nontraditional means of spreading the information get through to people and to do that you have to use copious amounts of time with a controversy driving attention to the issue. You also have to take the initiative and start out with an explanation of how and why you are going to engage in the matter, like telling the public that the balance of power designed into the Constitution gives the House control of the purse and the right to defund things that the House believes should not be funded in the current form and so the following items will not be funded unless changes are made. If Valery Jarret then makes a battle on that by shutting down the WHOLE government, you have to keep getting in front of the press and explain that you only defunded specific programs and that it is the White House shutting down the whole government and not you.

But Boehner is too much of a coward to make that fight. But he will fight his own base of Values Voters and announce his intention of supporting the first gay Republicn running for the House he finds (no matter what issue positions the guy has).

Boehner is also going out of his way to aggravate social conservatives which are not just Evangelicals, but also Pentecostals, Biblical Catholics and most conservative Christians across the country to include Mormons.

People are sick of that kind of ‘leadership’ and are choosing to not vote rather than continue to vote for people that they cannot stand any more.

The partisan system in our country uses the opposite party as some kind of bogey man to scare the public into voting for their favorite party so we don’t risk the other getting into power.

The Truth for Values Voters is that BOTH parties are lead by Bogey men. Having a President Romney or a Speak Boehner is not better than a President Obama or a Speaker Pelosi to Most social conservatives.

So if the GOP wants our votes they need to stop electing leaders like Boehner and running losers like Romney, Dole and McCain. Stop telling us we have to vote for just whoever the GOP throws up against the wall and sticks.

 

[estesbob]

A great many conservatives are sick to death of voting for people that put in a do-nothing coward like House Speaker Boehner in as the House Speaker. Boehner says that Obama has failed to uphold his oath of office, but wont take action as he has a duty to do. Boehner has also become too afraid of using the power of the budget, thinking Obama will always win on any budget battle due to the press giving the White House a monopoly on air time.

I could go on and on, but the point is that the GOP side of the story NEVER gets told by the main stream press. The GOP always has to let other nontraditional means of spreading the information get through to people and to do that you have to use copious amounts of time with a controversy driving attention to the issue. You also have to take the initiative and start out with an explanation of how and why you are going to engage in the matter, like telling the public that the balance of power designed into the Constitution gives the House control of the purse and the right to defund things that the House believes should not be funded in the current form and so the following items will not be funded unless changes are made. If Valery Jarret then makes a battle on that by shutting down the WHOLE government, you have to keep getting in front of the press and explain that you only defunded specific programs and that it is the White House shutting down the whole government and not you.

But Boehner is too much of a coward to make that fight. But he will fight his own base of Values Voters and announce his intention of supporting the first gay Republicn running for the House he finds (no matter what issue positions the guy has).

Boehner is also going out of his way to aggravate social conservatives which are not just Evangelicals, but also Pentecostals, Biblical Catholics and most conservative Christians across the country to include Mormons.

People are sick of that kind of ‘leadership’ and are choosing to not vote rather than continue to vote for people that they cannot stand any more.

The partisan system in our country uses the opposite party as some kind of bogey man to scare the public into voting for their favorite party so we don’t risk the other getting into power.

The Truth for Values Voters is that BOTH parties are lead by Bogey men. Having a President Romney or a Speak Boehner is not better than a President Obama or a Speaker Pelosi to Most social conservatives.

So if the GOP wants our votes they need to stop electing leaders like Boehner and running losers like Romney, Dole and McCain. Stop telling us we have to vote for just whoever the GOP throws up against the wall and sticks.

Which is why we lose. Purists who demand total adherence to the Party line or they will stay home and pout. So "sick to death " of people like Boehner we end up with people like Pelosi in charge.

We simply can not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the possible.

 

[RGCheek]

Which is why we lose. Purists who demand total adherence to the Party line or they will stay home and pout. So "sick to death " of people like Boehner we end up with people like Pelosi in charge.

We simply can not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the possible.

But we can let the ‘on our side’ be the enemy of the ‘undermining us at every turn’.

Don’t you get it? Having Boehner as Speaker is no ‘win’ for social conservatives. So why should we bother?

And when it goes out of his way to indiscriminately campaign for the first gay Republican, it tells me he is an enemy, not an ally, so how is him being Speaker supposed to be any better for Values Voters than a Dim who is an enemy like Pelosi?

I would rather have the open enemy in office than the stealth enemy who will backstab and ruin at every opportunity the people who genuinely support what I and other Values Voters want.

I HOPE AND PRAY BOEHNER IS DRIVEN FROM THE SPEAKERSHIP ASAP EVEN IF IT MEANS HAVING PELOSI RETURN.

 

[Path_Finder]

I think reality in 2012 gave the GOP a bit of a suckerpunch,

Hurricane Sandy struck and seemed to help the President, no thanks to Christie’s actions as well.

Conservatives in some cases stayed home but this is mainly problematic in the Swing States.

Romney had Obama on the ropes and may have let off a little in the 3rd debate, the biased media was of no help either.

Again, I’d go with a Conservative messenger but I’m apprehensive to always be so critical of others as well.

 

[BettyBoop416]

Didn’t read through all eleven pages of responses, so if I’m covering ground that’s already been covered, please excuse me.

My pick would be Jon Huntsman. As a former governor and ambassador, he has lots of experience with both domestic and foreign issues. He has worked in the administrations of both republican and democratic presidents. As governor of Utah he worked to lower taxes and restrict access to abortions. Although he was in favor of same-sex civil unions, he was not a proponent of same-sex marriage. As a former ambassador to China, he has a perspective that very few of the other candidates have. During the debates leading up the the last presidential election, he spoke very intelligently and handled himself admirably. I think he’d be a fantastic alternative to all the right wing nuts who are trying to out-conservative each other.

 

[mary_bobo]

But we can let the ‘on our side’ be the enemy of the ‘undermining us at every turn’.

Don’t you get it? Having Boehner as Speaker is no ‘win’ for social conservatives. So why should we bother?

And when it goes out of his way to indiscriminately campaign for the first gay Republican, it tells me he is an enemy, not an ally, so how is him being Speaker supposed to be any better for Values Voters than a Dim who is an enemy like Pelosi?

I would rather have the open enemy in office than the stealth enemy who will backstab and ruin at every opportunity the people who genuinely support what I and other Values Voters want.

I HOPE AND PRAY BOEHNER IS DRIVEN FROM THE SPEAKERSHIP ASAP EVEN IF IT MEANS HAVING PELOSI RETURN.

With all due respect, this kind of thinking is what got us another term for Obama. The House will stay GOP and I am not sure that Boehner will run for speaker again. Why not support what is possible rather than what is not so? We did not get in the mess we are in overnight and we are not going to get out of it with one election either.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Truth for Values Voters is that BOTH parties are lead by Bogey men. Having a President Romney or a Speak Boehner is not better than a President Obama or a Speaker Pelosi to Most social conservatives.

If this is true of most social conservatives, then they don’t know the left very well.

I’m not a Repub. Never have been. Born and raised Democrat. Held office in the party. Was, myself, a radical for a time as a young man. Walked away when supporting abortion became a requirement for being a party supporter. I realized one could not simultaneously be a dedicated Democrat and a serious Catholic.

I did, however, have the experience of being present and within the inner circles when the party moved hard left. Most people have no idea at all how totalitarian the core left is and how profoundly they have changed my former party. No idea. Most people have no idea how close that movement is to having a lock on power that cannot be removed. The left knows it’s half past eleven p.m. while most conservatives still think it’s nearing lunch time.

Paraphrasing Lenin, the left “…didn’t come here to crack jokes.” They’re deadly serious while encouraging their only potentially effective opponents to be supercilious and whimsical.